London attack: Muslims raise more then £17,000 in 24 hours for victims of Westminster terror and families

First topic message reminder :

Crowdfunding campaign now aiming for new target of £20,000 thanks to 'heartwarming' response

A crowdfunding campaign started by a Muslim man who witnessed the Westminster attack has raised more than £17,000 in just a day for victims of the atrocity and their families.

The Muslims United for London page passed the £3,000 mark within an hour of going live and surpassed £10,000 over the next 15 hours as hundreds of people rushed to donate.

Muddassar Ahmed said he started the fund after witnessing the attack, having entered Portcullis House just 10 minutes before terror struck and being barricaded inside for four hours.

“I was shocked to see the injuries and loss of life outside my window,” he wrote.

“I reflected on what it means to be a born-and-bred Londoner and found myself proud of how security and medical services responded, how ordinary passers-by offered first aid, and what our Parliament means to me, an institution that is the oldest of its kind in the world and how, regardless of our critiques of government policies or political parties, remains an institution that reflects how the will of the people can be expressed with civility and dignity.”

He has now raised the fund’s target to £20,000 because of the unexpected “high demand and heartwarming response”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-westminster-attack-Muslims-raise-money-victims-crowdfunding-khalid-masood-isis-terror-a7647196.html?cmpid=facebook-post

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:Thinking about this thread, which started off so positive and somehow became so negative, and the arguments about who is to blame, some people condemning religion, culture, country of origin, hill shepherds (whatever they are) etc, etc, all the blame means the people who terrorise and create divide win.
When we hear leaders say terrorists wont win, well they wont win by killing people themselves, but they may one day win by causing hate and distrust.

Spot on. It's making people pick a side. Divide and conquer.

Who is picking sides?

I was referring to the public and how all this divides people

eddie wrote:I was referring to the public and how all this divides people

So how and who is picking sides?

Are you saying Muslims should not choose the side in being against extremism and terrorism?

I am glad many are against terrorism and have picked the side that is against Islamic extremism

No didge I'm talking about the general public and how Facebook, for example, has "sides".... anti Muslims against those who aren't anti Muslim. These kind of acts do divide people by the side they choose to take.

Just like this forum TBH.

eddie wrote:No didge I'm talking about the general public and how Facebook, for example, has "sides".... anti Muslims against those who aren't anti Muslim. These kind of acts do divide people by the side they choose to take.

Just like this forum TBH.

There as much a problem as Islamic extremists

So again what sides, I do not see many people joining to be against Muslims.

The only side should be the one to combat hate and extremism, that people need to join

There are loads of pages on social media dedicated to hating Muslims that use these attacks as an excuse to hate them all.
Am I not explaining myself properly or are we at cross purposes?

eddie wrote:There are loads of pages on social media dedicated to hating Muslims that use these attacks as an excuse to hate them all.
Am I not explaining myself properly or are we at cross purposes?  

Maybe at cross purposes, but why are these pages up, if they are hate speech?

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:There are loads of pages on social media dedicated to hating Muslims that use these attacks as an excuse to hate them all.
Am I not explaining myself properly or are we at cross purposes?  

Maybe at cross purposes, but why are these pages up, if they are hate speech?

Bloody good question! I've reported all the hate shit I see on Facebook but the admin on FB ignore me and instead take down naked lady photos. Go figure.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Maybe at cross purposes, but why are these pages up, if they are hate speech?

Bloody good question! I've reported all the hate shit I see on Facebook but the admin on FB ignore me and instead take down naked lady photos.  Go figure.

Facebook is facing a court case with the same on allowing antisemitism..

Sadly social media has turned into a haven to spread countless hate

Yes and mostly it's really ignorant posts too - pure propaganda. I report them all the time but it seems Facebook aren't bothered.

eddie wrote:Yes and mostly it's really ignorant posts too - pure propaganda. I report them all the time but it seems Facebook aren't bothered.

You should collate the links and write to Huffington Post.
Use people who have clout and the attention of people Eddie

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes and mostly it's really ignorant posts too - pure propaganda. I report them all the time but it seems Facebook aren't bothered.

You should collate the links and write to Huffington Post.
Use people who have clout and the attention of people Eddie

You know, that's not a bad idea. I'm getting a little pissed off eith Facebook actually.
I have a stalker who likes to message me with foul insults and they still won't take action.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You should collate the links and write to Huffington Post.
Use people who have clout and the attention of people Eddie

You know, that's not a bad idea.  I'm getting a little pissed off eith Facebook actually.
I have a stalker who likes to message me with foul insults and they still won't take action.

Its the best way to deal with things like Facebook, the more media bad media attention they receive, the more they have to wake up and do something.

It's such a widely used platform for adults and young teens (and children, which I do not agree with) and they are really lax on the moderating of that place.

I can see them coming really unstuck soon.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I believe he did help, his remark wasn't rehearsed, it was a gut reaction from a member of the public who bravely spoke out when he saw someone commit a violent attack in the name of their religion.

His point was violence and extremism has nothing to do with any religion.

Maybe people who connect the two listened to what he said and realised he was dead right.

How did it help Syl?

Has it stopped Muslims blaming the west?

No

When Muslims, like some progressives do, stand up and challenge hate taught. Then these are the people you should be praising. The real unsung heroes.

His point is that some people do not believe that religion has nothing to do with violence.

He would be wrong.

For example, why in the bible for example is he genocide of the first born of Egypt celebrated?

Didn't you also blame the West for Muslim extremism?

The fact is it has been western policy that has driven the increase in the rise of Muslims driven to extremism

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How did it help Syl?

Has it stopped Muslims blaming the west?

No

When Muslims, like some progressives do, stand up and challenge hate taught. Then these are the people you should be praising. The real unsung heroes.

His point is that some people do not believe that religion has nothing to do with violence.

He would be wrong.

For example, why in the bible for example is he genocide of the first born of Egypt celebrated?

Didn't you also blame the West for Muslim extremism?

The fact is it has been western policy that has driven the increase in the rise of Muslims driven to extremism

Once upon a time I did, until I researched further and I saw I was in error.
Remember I said, I once supported Sexy's views.
So how is the above relevant, other than to prove that I can admit when wrong and was wrong, when I originally claimed this.
Someone has been reading the other forum lol

So thanks for pointing that out

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didn't you also blame the West for Muslim extremism?

Once upon a time I did, until I researched further and I saw I was in error.
Remember I said, I once supported Sexy's views.
So how is the above relevant, other than to prove that I can admit when wrong and was wrong, when I originally claimed this.
Someone has been reading the other forum lol

So thanks for pointing that out

Of course I've been reading it. By the way, Sassy said she was gardening when you thought she was telling me what to say.


(Sorry eddie)

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Once upon a time I did, until I researched further and I saw I was in error.
Remember I said, I once supported Sexy's views.
So how is the above relevant, other than to prove that I can admit when wrong and was wrong, when I originally claimed this.
Someone has been reading the other forum lol

So thanks for pointing that out

Of course I've been reading it.    By the way, Sassy said she was gardening when you thought she was telling me what to say.


(Sorry eddie)

So you admit to deliberately trying to shit stir then lol

No problem, this is the tactic often used by those immature there. Thinking it will embarrass me.
It does not in any shape or form and actually as I said, proves I can admit, where I was formerly wrong.

So again you brought this over to poorly start and it backfired.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course I've been reading it.    By the way, Sassy said she was gardening when you thought she was telling me what to say.


(Sorry eddie)

So you admit to deliberately trying to shit stir then lol

No problem, this is the tactic often used by those immature there. Thinking it will embarrass me.
It does not in any shape or form and actually as I said, proves I can admit, where I was formerly wrong.

So again you brought this over to poorly start and it backfired.

Not at all. If you've changed your mind, fair enough, but you did blame the West, so that needed to be pointed out. I merely found the relevant quote by reading the other place.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you admit to deliberately trying to shit stir then lol

No problem, this is the tactic often used by those immature there. Thinking it will embarrass me.
It does not in any shape or form and actually as I said, proves I can admit, where I was formerly wrong.

So again you brought this over to poorly start and it backfired.

Not at all. If you've changed your mind, fair enough, but you did blame the West, so that needed to be pointed out. I merely found the relevant quote by reading the other place.

It is when you are bringing topics, of which i am on the end of a discussion over here, after Eddie told me not to do so. Of which I agreed to discontinue, of which you are continuing. I am not the only thread to have been started on, as another poster has as well.

Why does it need to be pointed out?

What relevance does it have, if my views are different now?

None, other than as seen in the context of that thread, was to attempt to embarrass me, which as seen has failed.

As seen, I am not embarrassed that I have since further researched and seen how I was once in error.

It proves beyond a doubt, I can admit, when I have been wrong.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not at all. If you've changed your mind, fair enough, but you did blame the West, so that needed to be pointed out. I merely found the relevant quote by reading the other place.

It is when you are bringing topics, of which i am on the end of a discussion over here, after Eddie told me not to do so. Of which I agreed to discontinue, of which you are continuing. I am not the only thread to have been started on, as another poster has as well.

Why does it need to be pointed out?

What relevance does it have, if my views are different now?

None, other than as seen in the context of that thread, was to attempt to embarrass me, which as seen has failed.

As seen, I am not embarrassed that I have since further researched and seen how I was once in error.

It proves beyond a doubt, I can admit, when I have been wrong.

I only did it once, and eddie will probably tell me off anyway.

I didn't know your views were different now. Now you've told me, so it's all cleared up.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

It is when you are bringing topics, of which i am on the end of a discussion over here, after Eddie told me not to do so. Of which I agreed to discontinue, of which you are continuing. I am not the only thread to have been started on, as another poster has as well.

Why does it need to be pointed out?

What relevance does it have, if my views are different now?

None, other than as seen in the context of that thread, was to attempt to embarrass me, which as seen has failed.

As seen, I am not embarrassed that I have since further researched and seen how I was once in error.

It proves beyond a doubt, I can admit, when I have been wrong.

I only did it once, and eddie will probably tell me off anyway.

I didn't know your views were different now. Now you've told me, so it's all cleared up.

But you already knew my views and that I had already pointed this out, that I once supported Sexy on her views, as a reason to you and proof, that I knew her views.

lol, that was only the other day.

Either you have a problem with your memory, or you were indeed starting.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I only did it once, and eddie will probably tell me off anyway.

I didn't know your views were different now. Now you've told me, so it's all cleared up.

But you already knew my views and that I had already pointed this out, that I once supported Sexy on her views, as a reason to you and proof, that I knew her views.

lol, that was only the other day.

Either you have a problem with your memory, or you were indeed starting.

I didn't know your views. You have a habit of being quite contrary and taking the opposite stand to someone else for the sake of it. I haven't read your entire history of you and SM, so how would I know?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But you already knew my views and that I had already pointed this out, that I once supported Sexy on her views, as a reason to you and proof, that I knew her views.

lol, that was only the other day.

Either you have a problem with your memory, or you were indeed starting.

I didn't know your views. You have a habit of being quite contrary and taking the opposite stand to someone else for the sake of it. I haven't read your entire history of you and SM, so how would I know?

I have said my views many times and even recently.

You tried to deliberately start and its very easy to see you did, and it backfired.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't know your views. You have a habit of being quite contrary and taking the opposite stand to someone else for the sake of it. I haven't read your entire history of you and SM, so how would I know?

I have said my views many times and even recently.

You tried to deliberately start and its very easy to see you did, and it backfired.

Yes, but you had a different view, and I don't remember you saying you'd changed your view on that specific issue. Nothing has backfired - I was trying to find out why you appeared to be contradicting yourself. You have now explained that you changed your views at some point - known only to yourself. However, you once held the view that the West was to blame for Islamic extremism, so I don't think you can berate anyone else who might take that view.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I have said my views many times and even recently.

You tried to deliberately start and its very easy to see you did, and it backfired.

Yes, but you had a different view, and I don't remember you saying you'd changed your view on that specific issue. Nothing has backfired - I was trying to find out why you appeared to be contradicting yourself. You have now explained that you changed your views at some point - known only to yourself. However, you once held the view that the West was to blame for Islamic extremism, so I don't think you can berate anyone else who might take that view.

Do I need to say I have?

I have debated this topic many times and you even said you got this from the other forum.
To then post on here.
How can I be contradicting, if my views have changed.
That is illogical.
You would have to show recent views on this I have made that contradict. Which would mean I have claimed recently, that the west is to blame.
This is the poor trick a certain imbecile always uses, to try and deligitimize posters and it always fails
You never did, so your claim is both disingenuous and covering up for your real intent.

To poorly stir

It backfired

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but you had a different view, and I don't remember you saying you'd changed your view on that specific issue. Nothing has backfired - I was trying to find out why you appeared to be contradicting yourself. You have now explained that you changed your views at some point - known only to yourself. However, you once held the view that the West was to blame for Islamic extremism, so I don't think you can berate anyone else who might take that view.

Do I need to say I have?

I have debated this topic many times and you even said you got this from the other forum.
To then post on here.
How can I be contradicting, if my views have changed.
That is illogical.
You would have to show recent views on this I have made that contradict. Which would mean I have claimed recently, that the west is to blame.
This is the poor trick a certain imbecile always uses, to try and deligitimize posters and it always fails
You never did, so your claim is both disingenuous and covering up for your real intent.

To poorly stir

It backfired

I wasn't aware of your former views, or I had forgotten them. I'm merely wondering how you can lecture anyone for those views when you used to hold them yourself.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Do I need to say I have?

I have debated this topic many times and you even said you got this from the other forum.
To then post on here.
How can I be contradicting, if my views have changed.
That is illogical.
You would have to show recent views on this I have made that contradict. Which would mean I have claimed recently, that the west is to blame.
This is the poor trick a certain imbecile always uses, to try and deligitimize posters and it always fails
You never did, so your claim is both disingenuous and covering up for your real intent.

To poorly stir

It backfired

I wasn't aware of your former views, or I had forgotten them. I'm merely wondering how you can lecture anyone for those views when you used to hold them yourself.

Quite easily actually
Are you saying that now people cannot change views and its thus taboo to talk about them, because you have seen you were once wrong?

PMSL

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Do I need to say I have?

I have debated this topic many times and you even said you got this from the other forum.
To then post on here.
How can I be contradicting, if my views have changed.
That is illogical.
You would have to show recent views on this I have made that contradict. Which would mean I have claimed recently, that the west is to blame.
This is the poor trick a certain imbecile always uses, to try and deligitimize posters and it always fails
You never did, so your claim is both disingenuous and covering up for your real intent.

To poorly stir

It backfired

I wasn't aware of your former views, or I had forgotten them. I'm merely wondering how you can lecture anyone for those views when you used to hold them yourself.

You can't reason with stupid.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I wasn't aware of your former views, or I had forgotten them. I'm merely wondering how you can lecture anyone for those views when you used to hold them yourself.

Quite easily actually
Are you saying that now people cannot change views and its thus taboo to talk about them, because you have seen you were once wrong?

PMSL

You don't just talk about them though, you berate people and even abuse them for holding views that you once held. Still, you do that re religion generally, so I guess it's a habit.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Quite easily actually
Are you saying that now people cannot change views and its thus taboo to talk about them, because you have seen you were once wrong?

PMSL

You don't just talk about them though, you berate people and even abuse them for holding views that you once held. Still, you do that re religion generally, so I guess it's a habit.

Hilarious, so now further misdirection to attempt poorly to get out of shit stirring.

You have been rumbled

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't just talk about them though, you berate people and even abuse them for holding views that you once held. Still, you do that re religion generally, so I guess it's a habit.

Hilarious, so now further misdirection to attempt poorly to get out of shit stirring.

You have been rumbled

There was no misdirection, I'm disputing your claim that you merely "talk" about those views.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Hilarious, so now further misdirection to attempt poorly to get out of shit stirring.

You have been rumbled

There was no misdirection, I'm disputing your claim that you merely "talk" about those views.

You can dispute all you like, when its odd that others clearly know my views on this and have been for quite some time. This is also not the first time they have done this, to try and embarrass me and it always fails

Don't worry, I am not going to report you, I actually enjoyed you looking silly here, and as if people are not allowed to have different views.

Cheers, it was fun

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There was no misdirection, I'm disputing your claim that you merely "talk" about those views.

You can dispute all you like, when its odd that others clearly know my views on this and have been for quite some time. This is also not the first time they have done this, to try and embarrass me and it always fails

Don't worry, I am not going to report you, I actually enjoyed you looking silly here, and as if people are not allowed to have different views.

Cheers, it was fun

Report me for what?

By the way, I think there's a flounce coming up on the other place.

Ooops, did I post that? I didn't mean to say it.

What is this 'other place' people talk of...?

Tommy Monk wrote:What is this 'other place' people talk of...?

I can't say - eddie will tell me off.

Tommy Monk wrote:What is this 'other place' people talk of...?

I will PM you Tommy

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:What is this 'other place' people talk of...?

I can't say - eddie will tell me off.

I'm always the bad guy.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I can't say - eddie will tell me off.

I'm always the bad guy.

You mean I've got away with it?

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:LOL
Islam is a tribe
'Britishness' or what ever the fuck Tommy and nicko stand for is a tribe
This 'American Ideal' in the head of Trumpsters is a tribe

I am using the term 'tribe' in regards to the self defined group that they 'belong to' Not necessarily the real group
Which is why You are being an unreasonable prick to Muslims to suggest that the Hill shepherd speaks for them all.
They are as accurate a representation as The Trumpsters are to the US Constitution or the likes of Tommy an nicko are to the real British peoples (London does have a Muslims major after all, so obviously not all Brits are as dimwitted)

Or are you saying that the Englishness contains this Ideology of Oppression and invasion

No it is not. Islam is a religious ideology, that has many different ethnic groups and cultures

A tribe is something like football hooliganism

People identifying behind a nation, no matter their ethnicity is not a tribe

You simple spout idiocy, not anything your formed yourself, but what you plagiarize from other Far Lefties
Stop attacking posters because you do not like them

You can attack their beliefs, which again is not tribalism

You are just using this as a platform to attack posters.

Pathetic

Please tell me WHO I Plagiarized???

actually you are just not smart enough to understand
unlike you I don't need to copy and paste opinions of others
I in fact called lefties a tribe before too every grouping is and humans instinctively seek membership of a tribe due to the primal structures of our brains deeply rooted in our evolution and the previous requirements to aide in our species survival


Yes foot ball hooligans are tribe (probably one of the most obvious examples of the primal 'need' to seek out a tribal membership, since it has no baring on reality or quality of life or survival, it is merely a sports team after all)
And from Brain Chemistry perspective it is just like Ultra nationalists, just like fundamentalist religious people, the left that will never admit something good on the right and the right that will never admit something good on the left.... ALL the SAME ... all monkeys with SAME Chemical pumping through their skulls at that point.

WHICH if we step back and reflect with scientific analysis voiding ourselves from any group....
In the Brain the chemicals are the same.
The 'need' to 'defend' those they define as the 'their group' whether it be because they reborn on the same bit of dirt, same religious/cultural heritage or supporting same sports team.
For an atheist you really don't think in terms of science. it is all brain chemistry
there is definitely a group of people (that I have termed hill shepherds, I MADE IT UP I didn't read it anywhere in the context I use it)
where the chemicals of this 'tribal defense' has become addictive, leading to seeking out way to re-enforce it and give them another dose of some brain chemical.(we do not dissect them to work out which specifically but probably some sort of endorphin)
Look at tommy(for example, I have no problem with him he is an interesting sample of humanity)
He Can't accept that MOST Muslims don't support these terror attacks
so has to say the women on the bridge are only a few implying that they don't count as Muslims, yet will derisibly say 'only a few' when it is pointed out the amount of Muslims that are terrorists is a miniscule percentage.
because like the junkie addicted the endorphins from their drug of choice he subconsciously seeks the 'high' that this 'defense of his tribe' produces.

We are but monkeys after all. All of us are merely slaves to the complex chemistry of the brain. this chemical high has undoubtedly allowed our species to achieve the sort of large scale societies we have BUT humanity is reaching a turning point where it is not really necessary anymore.
through technology plus social and economic globalization we are coming to realize we are all just people and we can/could coexist if we choose to.

It all goes back to man vs. lion, really. One human vs. one lion is pretty much dead, unless he/she is very lucky.

One lion vs. a pack of humans doesn't stand much of a chance unless it runs. A dozen people with rocks and spears can do in a lion without losing many or any of their own group.

So things like droughts and lions selected us to be cooperative animals, and tribalism reinforces cooperation. It worked well in its time, but it doesn't help people form groups larger than a few dozen. A group much larger than that inevitably forms factions.

At some point, something much more evolutionarily novel came about -- the notion of inter-tribal cooperation. That allowed for the formation of large cities and eventually nations. You can see how novel inter-tribal cooperation is by how many people reject it and choose to isolate themselves from large, diverse populations to this day -- whether on the side of a mountain, or in a suburb.

The people who retreat from inter-tribal cooperation -- let's call them "hill shepherds" -- look at those who embrace it as being naive, not understanding threats, etc. The truth, though, is that those who embrace inter-tribal cooperation are (in general) just better at navigating uncertainty.

Someone who loves the city and being around people from different cultures doesn't think all their neighbors are necessarily wonderful, trustworthy people -- they just have a skill set that better enables them to thrive in an environment in which you have to use something other than tribalism to determine who to trust.

Wow, how naive.
Why again do people absolutely bury their heads?
This is not about inter-tribal cooperation, but what is a natural threat to that societies way of life and some things are simple incompatible to cooperation.

No point in responding to Veya, as he is off on a rant again about posters.

As to Plagiarism, well Tribalism, is well documented, of which you are going off, but wrongly associating ideologies to tribes, when ideologies have countless people in walks of life who can and do have loyalty to many things, including their family, friends, country, religion etc.

We are talking about beliefs and beliefs of which do not allow for any form of cooperation. Beliefs that place myths above that of reason. That even place these myths first and foremost above their own families. It has again seen over 2,000 years of beliefs forced on people that if they do not follow commands, from these myths, or what is described as absolute morals, punishment is meted out.

Secularism is not tribal, as its based on Freedom of thought and speech and is under direct threat, because these beliefs, do not allow for cooperation or freedom of though and expression. Only when these beliefs embrace secularism, do they cease to be a threat.

You can get along with people, and your neighbours, when those beliefs do not effect you, but as seen these beliefs directly effect people in all walks of life, because some take the beliefs over that of everything else.

The lion and humans are natural enemies, evolution has made them that way. Just as natural enemies can be found between humans. This has been shown through history, as people have always sought to take control over others and the biggest help for this form of control, has always been religion. Which calls for blind obedience through fear. Already we see in the likes of organisations like the UN, that have a majority of authoritarian nations, abuse human rights. They all have different beliefs, but cooperate to ensure they are protected, to continue their abuse.

This is an inter-cooperation system, that ultimately fails and fails, because a majority that cooperate. Look to continue to use that majority to continue their abuse of their citizens. They cooperate to ensure they can continue to abuse and hold power.

So the inter-cooperation argument is as seen flawed, when a majority of people who do cooperate, can constantly abuse others.


Humanity has to evolve from being takers, before it can learn to truly cooperate.

Exactly Ben

and in the modern world we can expand that to people all across the globe. Most people are happy to just get along with others and accept that if they aren't hurting others they are free to do whatever that doesn't really hurt anyone else.

But some still have the old mentality that said If I Let any of their tribe on my hill they'll ruin it.
Unfortunately there is enough hill shepherds in almost every group to allow the hill shepherds to point to the other hill shepherd in the other group and say "SEE all that group is evil cause look what that one of that group did", not taking into account that the Hill shepherd in the other group is doing the same thing using them as the example...

Core issue; is individuals LOOKING for reason to 'defend' their hill against others. back in the middle ages etc yeah it was needed but not really anymore.

I agree with the navigating uncertainty bit and would add adapting to change. these skills are the most important for success in the modern globalized world.

So you are not that capable of navigating uncertainty or adapting to change?
You are too concerned with YOUR perception of others and what is 'right' to see that most of it is bullshit really.... most people just want to be safe and happy.

Plus You where a soccer hooligan so you would be predisposed to the hill shepherd mindset.. did you find it 'addictive' did you 'enjoy' being in your soccer tribe?

veya_victaous wrote:So you are not that capable of navigating uncertainty or adapting to change?
You are too concerned with YOUR perception of others and what is 'right' to see that most of it is bullshit really.... most people just want to be safe and happy.

Plus You where a soccer hooligan so you would be predisposed to the hill shepherd mindset.. did you find it 'addictive' did you 'enjoy' being in your soccer tribe?

That did not answer any of my points but looked to misdirect with yet again poor unfounded accusations

What did I say about humanity evolving?

Take your time