View Full Version : Still thinking Indonesia is a Poor Country ?
In Jakarta, Car Worth USD 9.5 M sold like peanuts
The improving economy makes a luxury car principals invaded the Indonesian market.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 10:04 GMT
VIVAnews - The improving national economy made a number of principals, luxury cars stormed the Indonesian market. In fact, though overshadowed by the implementation of progressive taxation of vehicles and increase the ceiling to 200 percent luxury sales tax, luxury cars are selling well.
All New Lexus LS600h L that just launched yesterday, also sold out. Of the 10 units on the market target, the launch were sold out. "Maybe we will add another 10 units," said Johnny Darmawan Indonesia Lexus Principal in discussion with VIVAnews, Wednesday, February 17, 2010.
Cars worth Rp 2.7 billion ( about USD 200K )on the road in Jakarta was only introduced to customers in December 2009. No more than three months. "The Indonesian economy is relatively better, so keep selling luxury sedan."
Lexus new three-year target the Indonesian market, this year sales target of 350 units this year.
On the other luxury-class, Lamborgini’s are also tempting . Lamborghini Murcielago LP 670-4 SuperVeloce and Lamborghini Gallardo LP 550-2 Valentino Balboni, which was launched in early February was immediately brushed by customers.
At launch, the Murcielago has sold 5 units of quota granted in Indonesia 10 units. PT Eurosport Auto Lamborghini Indonesian importers as confident, luxury sedans worth Rp 9.5 billion (almost 1 milion USD) was going to run out until the end of 2010. "We're optimistic, still several months away," said Brand Manager PT Eurosport Auto, Jimmy Rianto.
Another version, the Lamborghini Gallardo Valentino Balboni out before the launch. The Indonesian market is responding well this type. But unfortunately, Indonesia only gets a small two units. Valerie Gallardo priced Rp 5.5 billion.
In addition, the premium car manufacturer Mercedes-Benz also will present 15 models and new variants in the Indonesian market, one Viano, a premium family car rivals Toyota Alphard. Not only the import, even producing a premium sedan Mercedes C-Class, E-Class, S-Class, and buses.
While BMW is ready to hook consumers with deep pockets an additional 10 new models and variants. One of them, the presence of the BMW X5 M in Indonesia in late 2009 which was priced Rp 2.2 billion – Rp 2.4 billion (off the road). No wonder if BMW Indonesia targeting double-digit growth this year.
"Indonesia is a democratic country that was developing with great potential," said Director of PT BMW Indonesia Ramesh Divyanathan.
Also in race, PT Garuda Mataram Motor, the distributor and sole agent Audi, also rumored to be strengthening its position in the premium sedan segment by presenting the Audi TT 2.0 A / T.
================================================== =============
http://otomotif.vivanews.com/news/read/130128-yang_mewah_yang_laris
================================================== ============
Directly translated from google translator with few adjustments...
Damn you rich people, spare me da money please:biggrin:
Automobiles are kinda like hand phones.... you invest in an expensive mobile phone, use it 3 - 6 months and then trade it in for the greatest and latest... the same applies for the exotic car business here.
Btw, I guess I paid to much for my X5 seeing that it was reported at 2.4 OTR?!! I guess I need to shop around next time.
The main problem with dirty money is to find toys to spend it. One can not decently just store it on a rekening account (tho' recently we've seen that some were stupid or confident enough to do it). Land, cars, luxury items are a very good way to spread this money without leaving much tracks.
NB: I believe that not all buyers are laundering money. Some are definitively making a living honestly and fully diserve to be able to afford such toys.
You would be surprised that the kantor pajak is now aware of vehicle ownership via NPWP... So say a tax payer claming Rp.xxx amount on his return, and owns several exoticts worth Rp.XXXXXX, then a red fag is raised and the questions are on.
My father who is WNI, doesn't like the fact of me buying and using his name for everything... Numbers don't match at the end of the year.
You would be surprised that the kantor pajak is now aware of vehicle ownership via NPWP... So say a tax payer claming Rp.xxx amount on his return, and owns several exoticts worth Rp.XXXXXX, then a red fag is raised and the questions are on.
My father who is WNI, doesn't like the fact of me buying and using his name for everything... Numbers don't match at the end of the year.
I know tjamail. Do you know the proportion of cars who belong to people NOT having a NPWP? :whistle:
I am sure you get my drift.
Yes, and what does paying Rp.2.5jt at the airport matter to them, right? LOL a drop in the bucket...
For example mine, I got a car but to cover that up from the tax people and the police, I park it at my neighbours garage, and register the car's name under my neighbours's name....never once use it and let them borrow all the time...
That way no one knows its mine...
What's the point of parking at a neighbors garage if you don't use.... Just claim your neighbor parks it at your place??
never once use it and let them borrow all the time...
That way no one knows its mine...
I have a huge garage Kratos and consider replacing my car. I swear no one will know it's yours Krat' and to make sure the secret remains unfolded I propose you to let me hide the BPKB in my safe deposit.
I also can store your credit card in me wallet if you insist.
Deal?
waarmstrong
17-11-10, 19:04
Looking for an honest person in Indonesia appears to be a needle in a hay stack exercise. Scofflaws bragging about their exploits reinforces the futility of the search and is more reason to feel depressed about the state of affairs here abouts.
You would be surprised that the kantor pajak is now aware of vehicle ownership via NPWP... So say a tax payer claming Rp.xxx amount on his return, and owns several exoticts worth Rp.XXXXXX, then a red fag is raised and the questions are on.
My father who is WNI, doesn't like the fact of me buying and using his name for everything... Numbers don't match at the end of the year.
So how does it work for a WNI female married to a bule male, marriage not registerred in Indonesia and she is the registerred owner of a house and vehicle but declares zero taxable income ???:help:
this is Indonesia...possible to being the next mother country...i hope...:)
There are also Ferrari and Porsche dealers here looking for a slice of the action.
this is Indonesia...possible to being the next mother country...i hope...:)
Apa, saya bingung Mas ...
I have a huge garage Kratos and consider replacing my car. I swear no one will know it's yours Krat' and to make sure the secret remains unfolded I propose you to let me hide the BPKB in my safe deposit.
I also can store your credit card in me wallet if you insist.
Deal?
You have to remember AT, although the car is mine, but the garage and the drawer where they put the BPKB is inside my neighbours property.....Simply taking it from them is consider trespassing..... So I'll ask their permission first, deal ?......
For Credit card, I'll ask my other neighbour....
For example mine, I got a car but to cover that up from the tax people and the police, I park it at my neighbours garage, and register the car's name under my neighbours's name....never once use it and let them borrow all the time...
Are you being serious ?? Why bother to have a car if you don't even once using it ?
i think kratos possibly was being facetious
and those prices mentioned sound impressive until you realise they are about 300% over inflated because of the tax here
example in the middle east you can get a fully loaded X5 for a lot less than $100,000 easily, and range rover
mercs there are like toyotas here but a merc here is considered a big deal just because they cost a lot - but you are paying 2-3 times more than the standard retail price, all because of import tax - which goes to the government anyway
so either way, there is tax going to the government when these boys buy their toys
still cant believe something like a honda civic car in jakarta costs the same as mid level merc in dubai
crazy
Looking for an honest person in Indonesia appears to be a needle in a hay stack exercise. Scofflaws bragging about their exploits reinforces the futility of the search and is more reason to feel depressed about the state of affairs here abouts.
What a slap in the face. Get out much? I meet honest Indonesians often.
Are you being serious ?? Why bother to have a car if you don't even once using it ?
You cute little Kittens, I thought I only got Tjamail in this game....Atlantis Catch up pretty quickly.....
You cute little Kittens, I thought I only got Tjamail in this game....Atlantis Catch up pretty quickly.....
I'm too kind and a bit gullible as Warmie said...
There are also Ferrari and Porsche dealers here looking for a slice of the action.
There's a very nice display of expensive toys in Senayan City mall at the moment. I have noticed recently that malls are becoming car show rooms. Even Ambassador Mall is in on the act.
Hombre de Maiz
19-11-10, 13:43
Ostentatious displays of affluence and status-driven look-at-me consumption aside, it still is a poor country. But most of all, its elite suffers from the poverty of vision, the poverty of leadership and the poverty of ambition.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll96/mauricio_28/ScreenSnaperImage.jpg
This graph should give you pause and make you take stock of how Indonesia has underperformed. Do you think the title of Father of Development and National Hero are still appropriate?
Thats what you see on the surface....
Say, any of you have ever been to Pantai Mutiara or Medan's Casino ?
gdp is one thing, but i bet $1,000 goes further in jakarta than it does in kl or seoul?
Hombre de Maiz
19-11-10, 15:14
The same aggregate relationships and conclusions can be drawn on the basis of PPP, that is, Indonesia's GDP per capita is less than one-third of Malaysia's and less than one-sixth of South Korea's. This, despite the fact that in the 1960s, the three countries started more or less at the same level. Money talks, nationalist/religious/Asian Values/Economic Hitmen bullshit walks.
You say Indonesia is a behemoth that cannot be compared with Korea and Malaysia? Ok, but then look at China which now has now for more than a decade higher per capita GDP than Indonesia.
The same aggregate relationships and conclusions can be drawn on the basis of PPP, that is, Indonesia's GDP per capita is less than one-third of Malaysia's and less than one-sixth of South Korea's. This, despite the fact that in the 1960s, the three countries started more or less at the same level. Money talks, nationalist/religious/Asian Values/Economic Hitmen bullshit walks.
You say Indonesia is a behemoth that cannot be compared with Korea and Malaysia? Ok, but then look at China which now has now for more than a decade higher per capita GDP than Indonesia.
China has only had a higher GDP per capita than Indonesia for a few years, unless you mean GDP PPP and even then it's less than a decade.
Indonesia is a collection of islands. Building suffecient infrastructure to properly develop Indonesia is rather difficult. This makes any comparison to China irrelevent.
But yes, Suharto definitely wasn't good for Indonesia. Even that graph you posted shows that. Look at the constant annual growth every year since he fell from power.
Indonesia is not rich. However, it is currently one of the fastest growing and most resilient economies in the world.
Hombre de Maiz
19-11-10, 19:19
The comparison to China is perhaps not relevant for the issue of the impact of geography on economic growth, but it is relevant for the issue of the difficulty of population size on economic growth. If you look around the world, there are only two high-income, high human development countries with populations above 100 million people: Japan and the U.S. It is one thing to bring a country like Singapore to high-income status. It is altogether a different proposition and challenge to bring hundreds of millions out poverty like China has done in the last 20 years.
Geography is important, but it is not determining. The sad fact of the matter is that Indonesia's infrastructure is decrepit and lacking even in Jakarta and on Java--the country's population, economic and political core--where, ten years into the 21st century, there is still no modern multi-lane road across the island. You need not probe out in the farthest reaches of the archipelago to see that a principal reason for Indonesia's underperformance is the absence of the "hardware" of growth, infrastructure. Look all around you in the inner islands even and you'll see that appealing to geography is little better than a convenient straw-man.
Here, the World Bank's data seems to disagree with you on the China score. But at the end of the day, you and I are splitting hairs, and I think we agree on the big story.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll96/mauricio_28/ScreenSnaperImage-1.jpg
Suharto had three decades of nearly untrammeled discretion, power and resources. He squandered them.
You know it's a poor country when the people there spend all their money and take huge loans on cars. Especially so when they find that cars sales are a sound base for an argument that their country is not poor. GDP per capita is not the average wage, nor can the average wage be taken as a true representation of what a normal middle income individual would earn in a certain country, there are hundredddddds of varying factors.
Hombre de Maiz
20-11-10, 10:36
Percent of the population living below $2 per day (PPP)
Indonesia: 54%
Malaysia: 8%
Bolivia (among the poorest of the Spanish-speaking Latin American countries): 30%
Nicaragua (among the poorest of the Spanish-speaking Latin American countries): 32%
Ghana: 54%
Botswana: 49%
Cape Verde: 40%
South Africa: 43%
Even dysfunctional, cronyist, archipelagic Philippines does better at 45%
In case you missed it, just recently the GoRI announced solid growth figures. It also announced an increased in the poverty rate. A point that I made earlier in the VIP culture thread is that fiscal and monetary stability do not, in and by themselves, lead to growth in the long-term. In the long-term, growth depends on increases on productivity, efficiency and technology. In other words, there still ain't no such thing as a free lunch. As far as I know, no president, no speaker of the DPR, no top ranking official is communicating these stark realities and the drastic changes needed to address them to the people of Indonesia. This is an example of the dearth of leadership and vision that the country lacks. Forget macroeconomics, trade, investment, etc. The root cause of chronic underperfomance is cultural, one of mentalities.
A common theme is to give Indonesia a free pass or to judge it by a different standard because it is a "Muslim country". This asterisk placed next to Indonesia should be insulting to Muslims for it tacitly says that the root of Indonesia's underperformance is due to one religion. It's as if I said, "We cannot expect Benin to excel because it is full of black people". See the implied judgement?
Another theme is to judge Indonesia not by its achievements, but rather to judge it well simply because it has held together and hasn't gone up in flames. So low has the bar now been set for the country.
A common theme is to give Indonesia a free pass or to judge it by a different standard because it is a "Muslim country". This asterisk placed next to Indonesia should be insulting to Muslims for it tacitly says that the root of Indonesia's underperformance is due to one religion. It's as if I said, "We cannot expect Benin to excel because it is full of black people". See the implied judgement?
With respect, I believe we shouldn't shy away from considering Islam as being a contributory factor/cause for Indonesia's poor economic position; a religio-cultural reason being way different from the colour of one's skin.
Examples:
- Friday Sholat: This decreases the working week by upto half a day (ie 10%) and sometimes upto a whole day (ie 20%) per week. No extra work time in lieu is expected.
- Prayer Times: Many Muslims take time off for this, (many don't).
- Fasting during Ramadan: A real or implied "excuse" for working slowly.
- The Haj: Paid "vacation"
- Etc
So, in effect, Islam could very well be a real cause for a very significant decrease in efficiency/productivity.
Hombre de Maiz
20-11-10, 13:07
World Bank's Ease of Doing Business index ranking
Thailand: 19
Malaysia:21
Vietnam: 78
China: 79
Kenya: 98
Papua New Guinea: 103
Ethiopia: 104
Bangladesh: 107
Indonesia: 121
With respect, I believe we shouldn't shy away from considering Islam as being a contributory factor/cause for Indonesia's poor economic position; a religio-cultural reason being way different from the colour of one's skin.
Examples:
- Friday Sholat: This decreases the working week by upto half a day (ie 10%) and sometimes upto a whole day (ie 20%) per week. No extra work time in lieu is expected.
- Prayer Times: Many Muslims take time off for this, (many don't).
- Fasting during Ramadan: A real or implied "excuse" for working slowly.
- The Haj: Paid "vacation"
- Etc
So, in effect, Islam could very well be a real cause for a very significant decrease in efficiency/productivity.
Wouldn't you include the concept of "God willing" as another excuse to not do much to make things happen or make things stop? Afterall isn't trying futile for what will happen is already written?
With respect, I believe we shouldn't shy away from considering Islam as being a contributory factor/cause for Indonesia's poor economic position; a religio-cultural reason being way different from the colour of one's skin.
Examples:
- Friday Sholat: This decreases the working week by upto half a day (ie 10%) and sometimes upto a whole day (ie 20%) per week. No extra work time in lieu is expected.
- Prayer Times: Many Muslims take time off for this, (many don't).
- Fasting during Ramadan: A real or implied "excuse" for working slowly.
- The Haj: Paid "vacation"
- Etc
So, in effect, Islam could very well be a real cause for a very significant decrease in efficiency/productivity.
Islam is only an excuse when you make it one. The jum'at is easily just a slightly extended lunch, and IIRC it's not compulsory. The two prayers during daytime are about as long as a typical smoke break. While not eating during daylight might induce lethargy, the effect is exaggerated by those who stand to profit from it. The haj is supposed to be once in a lifetime, and for state employees 24 work days of leave can be accumulated after 3 years.
Islam is only an excuse when you make it one.
And your point is?
I'm not the one making the excuses.
And your point is?
I'm not the one making the excuses.
The point is that people (Muslims and Non-muslims) use it as an excuse to benefit themselves or vilify others or both.
The point is that people (Muslims and Non-muslims) use it as an excuse to benefit themselves or vilify others or both.
Whether people use it as an excuse to get out of work or not does not change whether it decreases productivity or not. It either does, or it does not, the reason behind it is irrelevent.
Whether people use it as an excuse to get out of work or not does not change whether it decreases productivity or not. It either does, or it does not, the reason behind it is irrelevent.
Good point. Injun, are you "listening".
Whether people use it as an excuse to get out of work or not does not change whether it decreases productivity or not. It either does, or it does not, the reason behind it is irrelevent.
If American Muslims are any indication, no, Islam does not reduce productivity. If a Muslim in America is slacking off, it's not like people are going out of their way to keep him employed. In Indonesia the excuses might fly, but not here.
angelapowiro
21-11-10, 01:22
just as i often think too....
if Indonesia is poor country, then why there are many private vehicles on the streets....seem never end....ck ck ck
angelapowiro
21-11-10, 01:25
Whether people use it as an excuse to get out of work or not does not change whether it decreases productivity or not. It either does, or it does not, the reason behind it is irrelevent.
yes i also think its irrelevant to judge the decrease of productivity just because of it. im not muslim, but i dont agree to judge the decrease just because a religion needs to do their religious activity.
If American Muslims are any indication, no, Islam does not reduce productivity.
What are you saying?
a) US Muslims do NOT take time off during working hours to practice their religion? or
b) US Muslims taking time off to practice their religion do not negatively impact productivity?
In any event knee-jerk apologetic/emotional responses belong elsewhere.
Perhaps you can start a thread on "Religious spirituality does not fit into the economics equation."
<I won't be contributing.>
What are you saying?
a) US Muslims do NOT take time off during working hours to practice their religion? or
b) US Muslims taking time off to practice their religion do not negatively impact productivity?
In any event knee-jerk apologetic/emotional responses belong elsewhere.
Perhaps you can start a thread on "Religious spirituality does not fit into the economics equation."
<I won't be contributing.>
You can insist two 5-minute breaks a day and a shifted lunch break are consistent with your description as "very significant decrease in productivity", you just can't expect any rational person to agree.
In any event knee-jerk prejudiced/emotional digs into religion belong elsewhere.
... knee-jerk prejudiced/emotional digs into religion belong elsewhere.
I agree. And if you see any, kindly report to the mod(s).
If you reread my original msg, you'll note that it is (overly) careful to not irritate sensitivities. I mentioned a number of examples which together could accumulate to a significant negative impact on productivity. You are welcome to express disagreement (but I would prefer that you debate honestly and keep the emotions under control).
I expect my point(s) to stand or fall on the facts and/or relevance.
Floggin a dead horse here.
I agree. And if you see any, kindly report to the mod(s).
I used those words parallel to yours to give you a taste of your own medicine. It doesn't taste so great, does it? Perhaps you would put more consideration into it before you use them the next time around.
If you reread my original msg, you'll note that it is (overly) careful to not irritate sensitivities. I mentioned a number of examples which together could accumulate to a significant negative impact on productivity. You are welcome to express disagreement (but I would prefer that you debate honestly and keep the emotions under control).
If you reread my original message, I have outlined point by point why I disagree with your assertion. Then I was asked to boil it down to thumbs up or thumbs down, so I gave an answer based on my best knowledge of the subject. None of my answer fits the description of "knee-jerk, apologetic, and emotional".
I expect my point(s) to stand or fall on the facts and/or relevance.
If you really do, there is no need to accuse me and use subjective words like "knee-jerk, apologetic, and emotional". If you stick to talking about the subject instead of talking about what you think about me, we wouldn't be having this particular talk.
My second answer was brief not because it was a reflex, but because the inquirer specifically asked for brevity. If you are curious as to the analysis behind it, you could have simply asked me to share it, nicely. I know work environment in the U.S., I know American Muslims, and I know Islam. It doesn't take long to come up with a relatively accurate answer.
Floggin a dead horse here.
Maybe, but persistence is a virtue ...
... to which there is a (sanity-preserving) limit.
Hombre de Maiz
21-11-10, 10:34
The range of behaviours, mentalities and values (i.e. "culture") that impact on development go beyond the religious realm. Take the ingrained economic nationalism and the belief in the Messiahnic role of the state, for example. It would be a more fruitful discussion to focus on these various and sundry obstacles, rather than religion.
Having said that, my earlier point that Indonesia's performace always has an asterisk, the asterisk of Islam, next to it stands. The implicit belief is that countries where Islam is dominant need to judged by a lower standard. This is a phenomenon that flies under the radar and goes unchallenged among Indonesian Muslims.
I think there always is a tendency for humans to blame an easy target rather than themselves. Such as religion or race or ...
To me a good worker whether muslim or any other religion will get his task done in a reasonable amount if time. This is despite of their religion's requirements.
A bad worker will not. A bad worker who is muslim does have a few things to explain away his or her laziness.
It is much more important for indonesia to understand its possible role in the world and how it can take advantage of its involvement in the world economy.
Many examples abound of countries who overcame their own challenges. You cant tell me that china and india dont have their own seemingly insurmountable challenges. Indonesia's may be different but if china amd indi can overcome their challenges why cant indonesians? They are not inferior as individuals to any other race or culture that exist in this world
Hombre de Maiz
21-11-10, 21:02
Here's something for Indonesians to ponder. How is it possible, how did it happen that a formerly recluse, isolated and inward looking Communist country like China which once eschewed relations with the capitalist world now is more oriented and integrated with the rest of the world through trade and investment than Indonesia? How did that happen? WTF?
Here's something for Indonesians to ponder. How is it possible, how did it happen that a formerly recluse, isolated and inward looking Communist country like China which once eschewed relations with the capitalist world now is more oriented and integrated with the rest of the world through trade and investment than Indonesia? How did that happen? WTF?
Unburdened by mysticism and meaningless ritual maybe.
I used those words ... blah, blah, blah
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
Hombre de Maiz
21-11-10, 22:09
Well, to be fair, China is an authoritarian country where political opposition is suppressed. The state has a lot of latitude in setting and carrying out policy.
But wait, wasn't that what Indonesia had, more or less, during the New Order? The question becomes why didn't Indonesia take off like Korea or at least to a level comparable to Malaysia when the so-called "Father of Development" was at the helm?
Hombre de Maiz
21-11-10, 22:11
Unburdened by mysticism and meaningless ritual maybe.
What exactly are you referring to? To Pancasila? Or to the official narrative of history?
Well, to be fair, China is an authoritarian country where political opposition is suppressed. The state has a lot of latitude in setting and carrying out policy. But wait, wasn't that what Indonesia had, more or less, during the New Order? The question becomes why didn't Indonesia take off like Korea or at least to a level comparable to Malaysia when the so-called "Father of Development" was at the helm? I guess I should shut my trap now that he's about to be declared Pahlawan Bangsa.
waarmstrong
21-11-10, 22:15
It did "take off" if you are referring to Ibu 10%'s take off the top and take off-shore.
Um, actually, yes, some muslims in the US have had their productivity impacted. For instance, the somali muslims that were fired from a meat packing plant for striking and demanding additional breaks (a 5 minute break to pray is not realistic given they must wash, get set up, pray, change back to their work outform, ect.). The end result was the court stepped in and forced the meat packing plant to rehire the somali muslims and give them their requested prayer breaks at the cost of the plants productivity.
Breaks to pray decreases productivity, as does smoke breaks, lunch breaks, ect. Anything that stops people from producing decrease productivity. I don't really see how anyone could argue this.
What exactly are you referring to? To Pancasila? Or to the official narrative of history?
Well, to be fair, China is an authoritarian country where political opposition is suppressed. The state has a lot of latitude in setting and carrying out policy. But wait, wasn't that what Indonesia had, more or less, during the New Order? The question becomes why didn't Indonesia take off like Korea or at least to a level comparable to Malaysia when the so-called "Father of Development" was at the helm?
Actually, China tanked under authoritarian rule for the first 30 years. That's the inherent problem with dicatorships. A dictatorship can be extremely effective, quite possibly the most effective form of government, under competent leadership. However, given the inherent selfish characteristics of people who rise to the top in such an environment, a benign dictatorship is highly unlikely. China is currently flourishing from a decrease in socialism and an opening up of its repressed labor markets. There is no reason to assume that 10 or 20 years from now that the government will be just as effective as the one today. In fact, history shows that is unlikely.
Democracy is not always the best route but it tends to be more stable. This can also be shown in Indonesia. Under a self-centered dictatorship Indonesia floundered. Under a democratic government, it has had notable and fairly stable growth.
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
Well thank you, I didn't expect to be called wise. Now can we please dispose with the pleasantries about me and discuss why two 5-minute breaks and lunch at 1 instead of at 12 constitute "significant decrease in productivity" of American Muslims?
Well thank you, I didn't expect to be called wise. Now can we please dispose with the pleasantries about me and discuss why two 5-minute breaks and lunch at 1 instead of at 12 constitute "significant decrease in productivity" of American Muslims?
Well, what if the schedule of the factory makes taking a lunch break at 11:30 instead of 1 more effecient?
Also, they are not 5 minute breaks. The praying itself is about 5 minutes. So if they could simply drop to their knees where they are at with out any changing, prep, ect., it would be 5 minutes.
Then Friday would be a lot longer.
So, lets do some math and see what the lost productivity time is (assuming no change because of a change in lunch time). 2 10 minute prayer breaks Monday-Friday. An additional 1 hour on Friday. That's 160 minutes per week. 2400 minutes per 8 hour work week. Works out to about a 7% loss of work time. In reality, the relative loss would be larger or smaller since they aren't actually working 8 hours. If the scheduled break times could coincide with the prayer times, then there would be little/no loss in productivity. However, this requires places that hire muslims to alter their schedule to cater to muslims. As such, the decrease in productivity would likely be higher.
This also assumes that the work schedule is 9-5. The impact would vary from place to place and schedule to schedule. So any real calculation would be all but impossible. However, in a non-predominately muslim environment where the schedules are not based around muslim prayer times, it's difficult to say there will be NO impact to productivity.
Also, in a culture like Indonesia were it is (more?) common for people to be late and make excuses to get out of work, many people will take advantage of this. For instance, at my office, the "office boys" always leave at about 5:45 to go pray and come back at about 6:30. If I ask, they will say they are praying. It's accepted.
I used those words parallel to yours to give you a taste of your own medicine. It doesn't taste so great, does it? Perhaps you would put more consideration into it before you use them the next time around.
If you reread my original message, I have outlined point by point why I disagree with your assertion. Then I was asked to boil it down to thumbs up or thumbs down, so I gave an answer based on my best knowledge of the subject. None of my answer fits the description of "knee-jerk, apologetic, and emotional".
If you really do, there is no need to accuse me and use subjective words like "knee-jerk, apologetic, and emotional". If you stick to talking about the subject instead of talking about what you think about me, we wouldn't be having this particular talk.
My second answer was brief not because it was a reflex, but because the inquirer specifically asked for brevity. If you are curious as to the analysis behind it, you could have simply asked me to share it, nicely. I know work environment in the U.S., I know American Muslims, and I know Islam. It doesn't take long to come up with a relatively accurate answer.
Three replies, carefully designed so that none of them actually answer any of the questions asked.
Well, what if the schedule of the factory makes taking a lunch break at 11:30 instead of 1 more effecient?
Also, they are not 5 minute breaks. The praying itself is about 5 minutes. So if they could simply drop to their knees where they are at with out any changing, prep, ect., it would be 5 minutes.
Then Friday would be a lot longer.
So, lets do some math and see what the lost productivity time is (assuming no change because of a change in lunch time). 2 10 minute prayer breaks Monday-Friday. An additional 1 hour on Friday. That's 160 minutes per week. 2400 minutes per 8 hour work week. Works out to about a 7% loss of work time. In reality, the relative loss would be larger or smaller since they aren't actually working 8 hours. If the scheduled break times could coincide with the prayer times, then there would be little/no loss in productivity. However, this requires places that hire muslims to alter their schedule to cater to muslims. As such, the decrease in productivity would likely be higher.
This also assumes that the work schedule is 9-5. The impact would vary from place to place and schedule to schedule. So any real calculation would be all but impossible. However, in a non-predominately muslim environment where the schedules are not based around muslim prayer times, it's difficult to say there will be NO impact to productivity.
Also, in a culture like Indonesia were it is (more?) common for people to be late and make excuses to get out of work, many people will take advantage of this. For instance, at my office, the "office boys" always leave at about 5:45 to go pray and come back at about 6:30. If I ask, they will say they are praying. It's accepted.
Finally we get to the subject instead of worrying about whether I'm a knee-jerk, apologetic, and emotional. Thank you.
The two day prayers with 4 rakaat can each be done in about 3 minutes if everything is kept to the bare minimum and shortest verses. In a pinch I've seen people do it in half the time by pronouncing the words real fast. In other word, if you're determined to keep it short and personal (and there's a considerable incentive for it) it's doable in 5 minutes. If you're taking your time, insisting on doing it together at an off site Mosque (not required), and chatting on the side, you can easily stretch it.
When we are talking about non-exempt employees in a factory setting (a small slice of U.S. industry), many states mandate 10-minute paid break in addition to the customary 30-minute meal break. That is more than enough for a prayer. If it's a union shop, then the contract would typically include one 30-minute meal break and two 15-minute breaks.
In reality I have never worked in an environment where people get in trouble for taking 5-10 minute break either for coffee, smoke, or water cooler chat.
Mathematically speaking breaks represent lost time, but unlike machines that know no fatigue, humans need breaks. Breaks have actually been proven to increase productivity. You heard me right. This particular research shows 13% increase in productivity.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/hfes/hf/1985/00000027/00000004/art00009
One of my professors told the class that comprehension, concentration, and memory decrease after 30-40 minute uninterrupted work. That's why he insisted on 5-minute break. When comprehension, concentration, and memory are decreased, productivity suffers.
Now let's take a look at Friday prayer. Here are 3 segments of Friday sermon by AA Gym:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BRyaTgQAAM - 8:22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjqg-3U0JDg - 8:22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psyllCWDrOM - 7:51
Total time is 24:35, plus the prayer itself which is only 2 rakaat and can be easily completed in 5 minutes. That one hour on Friday can be easily covered by lunch break.
To allow more time for Friday prayer, in the middle east the weekend is Friday and Saturday instead of Saturday and Sunday. In these cases the decrease in productivity is about equal to that caused by Christian Sunday worship.
All the excuses are just that: excuses. They are tolerated in Indonesia because people don't want to cause a stir around religious topics and risk inciting a mob. In Indonesia employers screw employees by paying peanuts, and employees screw employers by slacking off, thus the vicious cycle continues. The government has put forth an effort to break the cycle by increasing take home pay, but tying it directly into attendance and performance.
Three replies, carefully designed so that none of them actually answer any of the questions asked.
Because I'm still discussing whether "knee-jerk apologetic/emotional" is relevant. Gratilla can level an ad-hominem to me, and when I answer specifically about that ad hominem you're gonna criticize me for momentarily stepping out of the topic? If he can do it, so can I.
Now where is your contribution to the topic?
Finally we get to the subject instead of worrying about whether I'm a knee-jerk, apologetic, and emotional. Thank you.
The two day prayers with 4 rakaat can each be done in about 3 minutes if everything is kept to the bare minimum and shortest verses. In a pinch I've seen people do it in half the time by pronouncing the words real fast. In other word, if you're determined to keep it short and personal (and there's a considerable incentive for it) it's doable in 5 minutes. If you're taking your time, insisting on doing it together at an off site Mosque (not required), and chatting on the side, you can easily stretch it.
When we are talking about non-exempt employees in a factory setting (a small slice of U.S. industry), many states mandate 10-minute paid break in addition to the customary 30-minute meal break. That is more than enough for a prayer. If it's a union shop, then the contract would typically include one 30-minute meal break and two 15-minute breaks.
In reality I have never worked in an environment where people get in trouble for taking 5-10 minute break either for coffee, smoke, or water cooler chat.
Mathematically speaking breaks represent lost time, but unlike machines that know no fatigue, humans need breaks. Breaks have actually been proven to increase productivity. You heard me right. This particular research shows 13% increase in productivity.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/hfes/hf/1985/00000027/00000004/art00009
One of my professors told the class that comprehension, concentration, and memory decrease after 30-40 minute uninterrupted work. That's why he insisted on 5-minute break. When comprehension, concentration, and memory are decreased, productivity suffers.
Now let's take a look at Friday prayer. Here are 3 segments of Friday sermon by AA Gym:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BRyaTgQAAM - 8:22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjqg-3U0JDg - 8:22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psyllCWDrOM - 7:51
Total time is 24:35, plus the prayer itself which is only 2 rakaat and can be easily completed in 5 minutes. That one hour on Friday can be easily covered by lunch break.
To allow more time for Friday prayer, in the middle east the weekend is Friday and Saturday instead of Saturday and Sunday. In these cases the decrease in productivity is about equal to that caused by Christian Sunday worship.
All the excuses are just that: excuses. They are tolerated in Indonesia because people don't want to cause a stir around religious topics and risk inciting a mob. In Indonesia employers screw employees by paying peanuts, and employees screw employers by slacking off, thus the vicious cycle continues. The government has put forth an effort to break the cycle by increasing take home pay, but tying it directly into attendance and performance.
If you read my post, I was commenting mostly in response to the comment about muslims in America. I also stated that the decrease in productivity in a predominately muslim area would likely be nullified by simple shifts in timing.
Also, I stated that a prayer can be done in 5 minutes. I said that a prayer break will not be 5 minutes in most situations. Simply because it's been done before does not mean you can expect it to be the norm. Unless you can show evidence of a significant portion of the muslim population doing their prayer in under 5 minutes, I won't concede this point.
... when I answer specifically ...
Unfortunately that's become the point. You habitually avoid the issue and seldom answer specifically when inconvenient; introducing diversionary and largely irrelevant comment instead.
The thread is specifically about Indonesia and the possible negative impact on Indonesia's economic situation of the practice of Islam in Indonesia
Now where is your contribution to the topic?
My contribution was to introduce the above theory in a non-confrontational way.
Your apparent "contribution" is to jump to the defense of a perceived but non-existent attack with largely irrelevant comment - thus "knee jerk", "emotional" and "apologetic". Mengerti?
When you "have something to say", we may still be listening, otherwise you might consider learning how to st*u.
What exactly are you referring to? To Pancasila? Or to the official narrative of history?
I'm referring to China not "wasting time" on religion.
If you read my post, I was commenting mostly in response to the comment about muslims in America. I also stated that the decrease in productivity in a predominately muslim area would likely be nullified by simple shifts in timing.
Also, I stated that a prayer can be done in 5 minutes. I said that a prayer break will not be 5 minutes in most situations. Simply because it's been done before does not mean you can expect it to be the norm. Unless you can show evidence of a significant portion of the muslim population doing their prayer in under 5 minutes, I won't concede this point.
If there is sufficient incentive in doing the prayer in 5 minutes, it is far from physically impossible to do in 5 minutes. I think losing one's job is sufficient incentive. I sincerely don't think any U.S. employer would tolerate prayer breaks if it appreciably and significantly affect productivity, not today anyway where Islam is not exactly popular here. The fact that American Muslims aren't fired en masse for taking short prayer breaks speaks for itself.
Finally [I] get to the subject instead of worrying about whether I'm a knee-jerk, apologetic, and emotional.
Thank you.
From my personal experiences in Indonesia:
1) The "5-minute" prayer sessions are usually in excess of 20 minutes and often in addition to statutory breaks. If you're seriously advocating the "3-minute" speed prayer concept for Islam, then either you really do have a sense of humour or are simply scratching around for "something to say".
2) Ramadan Fasting: I have yet to hear anyone claiming that a month of fasting does NOT adversely impact productivity in the workplace.
3) Friday Sholat:
To allow more time for Friday prayer, in the middle east the weekend is Friday and Saturday instead of Saturday and Sunday. In these cases the decrease in productivity is about equal to that caused by Christian Sunday worship.
Stating the obvious, Christian Sunday worship is done on a Sunday - the Christian day of rest; Friday Sholat is done on a, err, Friday - a normal workday. The way this is practised in Indonesia is to (almost) extend the weekend to three days.
Combining the three appears to add up to a significant negative economic impact.
All the excuses are just that: excuses. They are tolerated in Indonesia because people don't want to cause a stir around religious topics and risk inciting a mob. In Indonesia employers screw employees by paying peanuts, and employees screw employers by slacking off, thus the vicious cycle continues.
So you do agree. Now, why didn't you say that to begin with?
Unfortunately that's become the point. You habitually avoid the issue and seldom answer specifically when inconvenient; introducing diversionary and largely irrelevant comment instead.
The thread is specifically about Indonesia and the possible negative impact on Indonesia's economic situation of the practice of Islam in Indonesia
If you are more interested in the topic instead of judging me, you would have stopped talking about me doing this and that and started hashing the topic again. If a particular segment of the topic seems to be left out yet you think it deserves more scrutiny, then nobody is stopping you from bringing it up again.
My contribution was to introduce the above theory in a non-confrontational way.
First of all, that comment was not directed at you. It was directed at Kingwilly who jumped in criticizing me for a detour addressing your ad hominem, yet ironically without any contribution to the topic from himself.
Secondly, although I'm not a native English speaker I know enough that "knee-jerk, apologetic and emotional" do not fit in the sphere of "non-confrontational".
Your apparent "contribution" is to jump to the defense of a perceived but non-existent attack with largely irrelevant comment - thus "knee jerk", "emotional" and "apologetic". Mengerti?
My contribution is an actual appraisal of how long different types of prayer lasts, down to the minutes. I presented a study showing that breaks actually increase productivity. Since you said "I expect my point(s) to stand or fall on the facts and/or relevance", where are your facts? Instead you resort to a classic ad hominem.
When you "have something to say", we may still be listening,
I think I have something to say, complete with numbers and studies. Whether or not you listen is within your prerogative.
otherwise you might consider learning how to st*u.
Freedom of speech means I'm free to speak while you're free to not listen, yet now you advise me to learn to stfu just because you don't want to listen to what I have to say?
Since you use "stfu", who is being emotional now?
Thank you.
From my personal experiences in Indonesia:
1) The "5-minute" prayer sessions are usually in excess of 20 minutes and often in addition to statutory breaks. If you're seriously advocating the "3-minute" speed prayer concept for Islam, then either you really do have a sense of humour or are simply scratching around for "something to say".
I am showing the minimum. Because Indonesia is 88% Muslim there is simply no incentive for Muslims to hurry up. Well, unless it's the person's own interest, like trying not to be late for a flight or a train, then you'll see them legging it because the plane and the train don't wait for your prayer.
2) Ramadan Fasting: I have yet to hear anyone claiming that a month of fasting does NOT adversely impact productivity in the workplace.
And I have yet to hear anybody fired in the U.S. for fasting. If there is a problem it's people making excuses, not because the religion is inherently counter productive. Unlike in Indonesia, in USA people can't slack off or cut the day short just because they're fasting, and they're doing just fine.
3) Friday Sholat:
Stating the obvious, Christian Sunday worship is done on a Sunday - the Christian day of rest; Friday Sholat is done on a, err, Friday - a normal workday. The way this is practised in Indonesia is to (almost) extend the weekend to three days.
If there is a strong incentive to keep Friday productive, then doing the Jumat is totally doable within an hour. The incentive is simply not there, and nobody feels like challenging it.
Certain Islamic organizations in Indonesia do use the Friday-Saturday weekend, but I doubt it can be done nationwide because technically Indonesia is not a Muslim country. I'm quite sure many non-Muslims would object to this.
Combining the three appears to add up to a significant negative economic impact.
In Indonesia people find all sorts of excuse to shirk off work, whether it's macet, or masuk angin, or dead grandmother, or sholat. The productivity problem is with the environment tolerating such excuses, not the alleged excuses themselves. Islam is simply one of the more convenient excuses, because people dare not challenge it.
So you do agree. Now, why didn't you say that to begin with?
I have said from the beginning that Islam is used as an excuse, I do not agree that Islam itself is significantly harmful toward productivity.
If there is sufficient incentive in doing the prayer in 5 minutes, it is far from physically impossible to do in 5 minutes. I think losing one's job is sufficient incentive. I sincerely don't think any U.S. employer would tolerate prayer breaks if it appreciably and significantly affect productivity, not today anyway where Islam is not exactly popular here. The fact that American Muslims aren't fired en masse for taking short prayer breaks speaks for itself.
Unless it's court ordered of course, which it was ;-)
If you are more interested in the topic instead of judging me, you would have stopped talking about me doing this and that and started hashing the topic again. If a particular segment of the topic seems to be left out yet you think it deserves more scrutiny, then nobody is stopping you from bringing it up again.
I'm not in the least interested in judging you. I'm even less interested in rehashing or regurgitating a topic for those feigning difficulty in understanding the original simple concept.
First of all, that comment was not directed at you. It was directed at Kingwilly who jumped in criticizing me for a detour addressing your ad hominem, yet ironically without any contribution to the topic from himself.
What is actually ironic is your criticism of a criticism criticizing you for wandering off topic and insisting that the critic stick to topic. I almost larfed at the inanity. BTW, "ad hominem" implies that the original comment (ie yours) was valid, which it wasn't, thus, by definition, NO ad hominem.
Secondly, although I'm not a native English speaker I know enough that "knee-jerk, apologetic and emotional" do not fit in the sphere of "non-confrontational".
First, as a non-native English speaker, you can be forgiven much, although not deliberate dishonest debating tactics. If your "writing style" is inadvertent, comprehension and creative/contextual writing exercises are in order; if deliberate, then you can expect to get your wrists (metaphorically) slapped.
Second, for "knee-jerk, apologetic and emotional" you conveniently omitted the timeline. My original comment was non-confrontational. Your following comments were "knee-jerk, apologetic and emotional", thus my resulting valid comments. Is that clear?
you advise me to learn to stfu just because you don't want to listen to what I have to say? Since you use "stfu", who is being emotional now?
This is not emotional. Look at the original comment:
When you "have something to say", we may still be listening, otherwise you might consider learning how to st*u.
Sounds like good advice to me.
If you are more interested in the topic instead of judging me, you would have stopped talking about me doing this and that and started hashing the topic again. If a particular segment of the topic seems to be left out yet you think it deserves more scrutiny, then nobody is stopping you from bringing it up again.
First of all, that comment was not directed at you. It was directed at Kingwilly who jumped in criticizing me for a detour addressing your ad hominem, yet ironically without any contribution to the topic from himself.
Secondly, although I'm not a native English speaker I know enough that "knee-jerk, apologetic and emotional" do not fit in the sphere of "non-confrontational".
My contribution is an actual appraisal of how long different types of prayer lasts, down to the minutes. I presented a study showing that breaks actually increase productivity. Since you said "I expect my point(s) to stand or fall on the facts and/or relevance", where are your facts? Instead you resort to a classic ad hominem
I think I have something to say, complete with numbers and studies. Whether or not you listen is within your prerogative..
No, you showed how long they COULD last, not how long they do or should last. You also did not adress the point I had previously stated on this particular issue. They can not simply drop to their knees where they are and start praying, correct? Many wash before praying, get a rug, find the right direction, and some (especially women from my experience) even change their clothes before praying. I was being generous when I said that a 10 minute prayer break is realistic.
I am showing the minimum. Because Indonesia is 88% Muslim there is simply no incentive for Muslims to hurry up. Well, unless it's the person's own interest, like trying not to be late for a flight or a train, then you'll see them legging it because the plane and the train don't wait for your prayer.
And I have yet to hear anybody fired in the U.S. for fasting. If there is a problem it's people making excuses, not because the religion is inherently counter productive. Unlike in Indonesia, in USA people can't slack off or cut the day short just because they're fasting, and they're doing just fine.
http://colorado.indymedia.org/node/1176
They were fired.
If there is a strong incentive to keep Friday productive, then doing the Jumat is totally doable within an hour. The incentive is simply not there, and nobody feels like challenging it.
Except, not everyone works from 9-5. See the above article. In that article, the management even changed the lunch break time to try to accomodate the 400 muslim workers they had. However, the muslims weren't satisfied because sunset is not a set time and the length of the break wasn't long enough.
Certain Islamic organizations in Indonesia do use the Friday-Saturday weekend, but I doubt it can be done nationwide because technically Indonesia is not a Muslim country. I'm quite sure many non-Muslims would object to this.
Also, this is because Indonesia does business with other countries that do not work Sunday but do work Friday. This would hinder Indonesian growth and significantly reduce productivity of international/multinational corporations.
In Indonesia people find all sorts of excuse to shirk off work, whether it's macet, or masuk angin, or dead grandmother, or sholat. The productivity problem is with the environment tolerating such excuses, not the alleged excuses themselves. Islam is simply one of the more convenient excuses, because people dare not challenge it.
This is true in every country I've ever worked.
I have said from the beginning that Islam is used as an excuse, I do not agree that Islam itself is significantly harmful toward productivity.
Define "significantly"...
I'm not in the least interested in judging you. I'm even less interested in rehashing or regurgitating a topic for those feigning difficulty in understanding the original simple concept.
Because you don't want to hash the topic, then you'd rather call me "knee-jerk, apologetic, and emotional". None of my words on the first two posts are subjective or as you term it "coloured", yet you claim to know my emotional state. You may claim to have no interest in judging me, but you are in fact judging me. Now you pass a new judgment that I "feign difficulty in understanding the original simple concept".
What is actually ironic is your criticism of a criticism criticizing you for wandering off topic and insisting that the critic stick to topic. I almost larfed at the inanity.
You fired the first salvo of off topic wandering by your personal characterization of "knee-jerk, apologetic, and emotional". I have the natural right to defend myself from any attack, either verbal or physical. KW chose to criticize me for wandering off topic while you were actually the first person doing it, all the while not contributing anything to the topic itself. Now you sling another judgment that my post is inane and worth ridicule.
BTW, "ad hominem" implies that the original comment (ie yours) was valid, which it wasn't, thus, by definition, NO ad hominem.
I don't know where you got that definition. According to Webster's dictionary ad hominem is (1)appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect (2)marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. There is nothing about the validity of the contention. Any attack on the person instead of on the idea is ad hominem.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad+hominem
First, as a non-native English speaker, you can be forgiven much, although not deliberate dishonest debating tactics. If your "writing style" is inadvertent, comprehension and creative/contextual writing exercises are in order; if deliberate, then you can expect to get your wrists (metaphorically) slapped. Instead of addressing the point you have a problem with, you resort to another judgment on my person. Several paragraphs ago you claim not to have an interest in judging me, yet you have actively been passing judgments since.
Second, for "knee-jerk, apologetic and emotional" you conveniently omitted the timeline. My original comment was non-confrontational. Your following comments were "knee-jerk, apologetic and emotional", thus my resulting valid comments. Is that clear?
My comment was: "If American Muslims are any indication, no, Islam does not reduce productivity. If a Muslim in America is slacking off, it's not like people are going out of their way to keep him employed. In Indonesia the excuses might fly, but not here.". I present them again so any reasonable people can see whether they constitute "knee-jerk, apologetic and emotional".
In any case if you disagree with me you should simply talk about the points you disagree with and offer counter arguments complete with the facts. There is no need to offer judgment on my personality or mental state, as they are not germane to the discussion.
This is not emotional. Look at the original comment:
"When you "have something to say", we may still be listening, otherwise you might consider learning how to st*u."
Sounds like good advice to me.
You are arguing that telling me --in effect-- to Shut The Fuck Up is in fact not emotional? Not only that, you insist that it's a good advice?
No, you showed how long they COULD last, not how long they do or should last. You also did not adress the point I had previously stated on this particular issue. They can not simply drop to their knees where they are and start praying, correct? Many wash before praying, get a rug, find the right direction, and some (especially women from my experience) even change their clothes before praying. I was being generous when I said that a 10 minute prayer break is realistic.
Let me ask you this: Have you witnessed with your own eyes a Muslim in a hurry and squeezing in a quick prayer fully knowing he can't be late? I have, many times, and 5 minutes are completely within the realm of possibility.
- The wash is doable within 30 seconds.
- The rug is always kept at the same place if he's praying routinely.
- The direction is established the first time he pray at work, and memorized thereafter. It's not like every day you have to figure out where north west is at work.
- Women prayer gown consists of two very loose pieces. The top is draped over the head and fastened with a cord, the bottom is pulled up and also fastened with a cord or sewn in elastic band. They both simply go on top of whatever garment she's wearing. It take seconds to put on and off.
If there's no incentive to be fast, you can go as long as you can get away with.
My thread is popular....love it...
Yeah, Kratos..
Please make another one that is no need to argue heavily on a matter. Something light and fun and easy. Something that we don't need to think. (Alia is pretty, for example) :eyebrows:
If you disagree with me you should simply talk about the points you disagree with and offer counter arguments complete with the facts.
I disagree; I have a number of options available - the most attractive being to simply ignore your comments. I really don't have the time or the interest to emotionally invest in the trivial and the irrelevant.
my post is inane and worth ridicule
Now that's one thing I agree with.
You are arguing that telling me --in effect-- to Shut The Fuck Up is in fact not emotional? Not only that, you insist that it's a good advice?
For the third time, what I said was:
When you "have something to say", we may still be listening, otherwise you might consider learning how to st*u.
Sounds like perfectly good advice to me, when you consider.
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
http://colorado.indymedia.org/node/1176
They were fired.
They were fired not for fasting, but because the company reneged on their earlier agreement to shift the break time for prayer. To top it off, they actually closed bathrooms and taped water fountains. It's one thing to not give time for prayer, it's a different thing entirely to actively prevent it.
The law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) requires an employer to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the employer. Some reasonable religious accommodations that employers may be required to provide workers include leave for religious observances, time and/or place to pray, and ability to wear religious garb. If indeed a judge found against the employer, it must be because he/she did not think the accommodation created an undue hardship.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95254631
Except, not everyone works from 9-5. See the above article. In that article, the management even changed the lunch break time to try to accomodate the 400 muslim workers they had. However, the muslims weren't satisfied because sunset is not a set time and the length of the break wasn't long enough.
There's nothing about "the break wasn't long enough". The contention is that the company insisted on 8PM break while the workers needed a 7:15PM break. Any judge would rule that shifting break time (without prolonging it) is a reasonable accommodation under Title VII. There's no particular reason why the company has to have the break time at 8:00PM.
Also, this is because Indonesia does business with other countries that do not work Sunday but do work Friday. This would hinder Indonesian growth and significantly reduce productivity of international/multinational corporations.
Multinational corporations have to deal with differences in time zone, holiday schedule, work hours, and length of vacation. Different weekend days is only one of many challenges, so I disagree that it's significant in the grand scheme of things.
The company I work with always has a problem pushing through major projects during summer with our European partners due to their month-long vacation time. If only they take 2-week vacation like Americans.
Define "significantly"...
It's significant if it creates an undue hardship.
I disagree; I have a number of options available - the most attractive being to simply ignore your comments. I really don't have the time or the interest to emotionally invest in the trivial and the irrelevant.
You always have that option, true. But instead of hashing the topic or ignoring the comment, you chose personal attack.
Now that's one thing I agree with.
I hope your deliberately quoting me out of context is just an attempt at humor.
For the third time, what I said was: When you "have something to say", we may still be listening, otherwise you might consider learning how to st*u. Sounds like perfectly good advice to me, when you consider.
Again, I'm just clarifying that telling me to shut the fuck up is considered good advice by you. I don't consider it a good advice, or even a valid one in the framework of freedom of speech. You are free to ignore me, you are not free to silence me.
Yeah, Kratos..
Please make another one that is no need to argue heavily on a matter. Something light and fun and easy. Something that we don't need to think. (Alia is pretty, for example) :eyebrows:
Alia, there are already more than enough inane threads in the forum for light entertainment, where one does not need to think, don't you think? ...:wink2:
Again, I'm just clarifying that telling me to shut the fuck up is considered good advice by you. I don't consider it a good advice, or even a valid one in the framework of freedom of speech. You are free to ignore me, you are not free to silence me.
STFU Show Them Fury Unleashed
STFU Shut the Freak Up
STFU Star Trek Federation University
STFU Sir, That's Freakin Ugly
You are assuming only that the impolite version is applied, however all of these are acceptable translations, now I do not think your use of what you are guessing at what was implied is appropriate for the young and tender, as well as female memebrs who read this forum
Hehe.., iya Om, you're right.
Well then.., lets carry on on the topic on hand.
Alia, there are already more than enough inane threads in the forum for light entertainment, where one does not need to think, don't you think? ...:wink2:
Do you believe that these guys are thinking? I suspect there is very limited thought involved by this point in the 'argument'. It looks more like they are just throwing shit at each other.
Of course that can be entertaining too. Just be careful that none of it splashes onto you..
Well then.., lets carry on on the topic on hand.
OK we shall :-D
No Indonesia is not a poor country. It is rich in resources, least of all its people. There's so much potential here only if the people as individuals will break out of their mold and rise above their perceived lot in life. I've seen so much of this in small scales, but nothing beyond day to day events. Its people are intelligent, resourceful, strong, and they are survivors.
But the attitude of its people (in general, not 100% of the people are like this) is what makes it poor. The acceptance of status quo and not willing to fail in trying new things. The unwillingness to accept that there are better ways out there and that they can achieve it too.
Not that any of these are specific to Indonesia, but there are a large percentage of Indonesians as a people who fall in the above category. I see Indonesians as an exaggeration of the American culture (maybe others too, but I'm not familiar with them):
- the worship of someone perceived as "better", usually academia. While this happens in the US, it's very bad here. If you have an American or Australian education, what you'll say become gospel. While there's a lack of critical thinking in the US, it is almost non existent here
- individualist mentality. Look at how Indonesians drive/ride. It's 'me first'. People accuse Americans of individualistic behaviors?
I'm not saying these things to say Indonesians are mean and stupid or anything like that. I'm saying they have the potential and ability to be the next great Asian country. But will they work for it and grab hold of the opportunity?
I don't know.
your deliberately quoting me
Yep, don't you just love it.
my post is inane and worth ridicule
my post is inane and worth ridicule
my post is inane and worth ridicule
Best thing you've said this month.
Again, I'm just clarifying that telling me to shut the fuck up is considered good advice by you.
Best advice you'll get all year.
Thats right, toss the beer and kick their arse...
Yeah, Kratos..
Please make another one that is no need to argue heavily on a matter. Something light and fun and easy. Something that we don't need to think. (Alia is pretty, for example) :eyebrows:
Cute kitten....you're cute to me...:wink:....
Let me ask you this: Have you witnessed with your own eyes a Muslim in a hurry and squeezing in a quick prayer fully knowing he can't be late? I have, many times, and 5 minutes are completely within the realm of possibility.
- The wash is doable within 30 seconds.
- The rug is always kept at the same place if he's praying routinely.
- The direction is established the first time he pray at work, and memorized thereafter. It's not like every day you have to figure out where north west is at work.
- Women prayer gown consists of two very loose pieces. The top is draped over the head and fastened with a cord, the bottom is pulled up and also fastened with a cord or sewn in elastic band. They both simply go on top of whatever garment she's wearing. It take seconds to put on and off.
If there's no incentive to be fast, you can go as long as you can get away with.
Lets say the wash is doable in 30 seconds (which of course will make a big mess but lets leave that for a different topic). You will still need to walk to the bathroom to wash up and walk back.
You will not likely have your rug stored where you work. This means you must go get it. If you work in a factory, it will likely be in your locker.
The reason I mentioned the prayer direction is because they go to some where private to pray right? They don't just throw a rug in at their feet and pray, right? This means more time.
I never stated that changing takes a long time, only that they must do so. This means they will, once again, have to get it and put it back after they are done.
Your "time" is a best case scenario requiring all available items to be immediately accessible. For this to actually be true, they would need to work, wash and pray all in the same space. Unless they work in a bathroom, I find this highly unlikely.
They were fired not for fasting, but because the company reneged on their earlier agreement to shift the break time for prayer. To top it off, they actually closed bathrooms and taped water fountains. It's one thing to not give time for prayer, it's a different thing entirely to actively prevent it.
The law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) requires an employer to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the employer. Some reasonable religious accommodations that employers may be required to provide workers include leave for religious observances, time and/or place to pray, and ability to wear religious garb. If indeed a judge found against the employer, it must be because he/she did not think the accommodation created an undue hardship.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95254631
There's nothing about "the break wasn't long enough". The contention is that the company insisted on 8PM break while the workers needed a 7:15PM break. Any judge would rule that shifting break time (without prolonging it) is a reasonable accommodation under Title VII. There's no particular reason why the company has to have the break time at 8:00PM.
They did not break any agreement. The muslim workers asked to have the break shifted from 9pm to 7pm. The management tried to compromise and shifted it to 8pm, because they felt that a 7pm break was to early given their starting time.
Except that it made their lunch break about 1/4 of the way through their work shift. I can understand why the management would not wish to do that. Also, what about the majority of the workers, who were catholic latino's who would rather have had a break in the middle of the work shift rather than shortly after it started?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
take note of the appeal to law fallacy. It in no way supports your stance. Laws are not innately logical nor innately moral.
Multinational corporations have to deal with differences in time zone, holiday schedule, work hours, and length of vacation. Different weekend days is only one of many challenges, so I disagree that it's significant in the grand scheme of things.
The company I work with always has a problem pushing through major projects during summer with our European partners due to their month-long vacation time. If only they take 2-week vacation like Americans.
It's significant if it creates an undue hardship.
Thanks for showing that I am right. Simply because the European practice of 30 day vacations also causes hardship does not mean that shifting the work week to no coincide with the rest of world doesn't cause hardship.
You even go so far as to state that shifting the work week in such a manner would be a challenge that multinationals would have to face in a country that did this. You state this while claiming that it doesn't cause any hardships or loss in productivity. Your own statement is oxymoronic.
This kid can dance way better than ALL OF YOU....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teIhVcM0V-Y&feature=related
angelapowiro
22-11-10, 21:12
even Megawati ever said it takes more time to build Indonesians mentality rather than to build the country physically....
OK we shall :-D
No Indonesia is not a poor country. It is rich in resources, least of all its people. There's so much potential here only if the people as individuals will break out of their mold and rise above their perceived lot in life. I've seen so much of this in small scales, but nothing beyond day to day events. Its people are intelligent, resourceful, strong, and they are survivors.
But the attitude of its people (in general, not 100% of the people are like this) is what makes it poor. The acceptance of status quo and not willing to fail in trying new things. The unwillingness to accept that there are better ways out there and that they can achieve it too.
Not that any of these are specific to Indonesia, but there are a large percentage of Indonesians as a people who fall in the above category. I see Indonesians as an exaggeration of the American culture (maybe others too, but I'm not familiar with them):
- the worship of someone perceived as "better", usually academia. While this happens in the US, it's very bad here. If you have an American or Australian education, what you'll say become gospel. While there's a lack of critical thinking in the US, it is almost non existent here
- individualist mentality. Look at how Indonesians drive/ride. It's 'me first'. People accuse Americans of individualistic behaviors?
I'm not saying these things to say Indonesians are mean and stupid or anything like that. I'm saying they have the potential and ability to be the next great Asian country. But will they work for it and grab hold of the opportunity?
I don't know.
Lets say the wash is doable in 30 seconds (which of course will make a big mess but lets leave that for a different topic). You will still need to walk to the bathroom to wash up and walk back.
You will not likely have your rug stored where you work. This means you must go get it. If you work in a factory, it will likely be in your locker.
The reason I mentioned the prayer direction is because they go to some where private to pray right? They don't just throw a rug in at their feet and pray, right? This means more time.
I never stated that changing takes a long time, only that they must do so. This means they will, once again, have to get it and put it back after they are done.
Your "time" is a best case scenario requiring all available items to be immediately accessible. For this to actually be true, they would need to work, wash and pray all in the same space. Unless they work in a bathroom, I find this highly unlikely.
Your assertions that 5-minute prayer is impossible is hypothetical. I suggest you find a Muslim (with no vested interest in keeping the prayer long around you) and ask if 5-minute is doable.
Now, I accept that in a meat processing plant they probably need to take off their soiled outer protective garment (apron, head covering, boots, etc), adding maybe a minute. But, in their industry a typical factory break of 15 minutes (as commonly demanded by union contract) should cover it.
Hombre de Maiz
22-11-10, 21:34
Quite hypocritical of Megawati to cast aspersions on the mentalities of Indonesians when she and her party's ideology purports to rest on the discredited, disastrous, intellectually bankrupt economic nationalism of her father.
That, discussing the persistence of such economic mentalities rather than the role of Islam, would be a more fruitful discussion about how culture impacts development.
Your assertions that 5-minute prayer is impossible is hypothetical. I suggest you find a Muslim (with no vested interest in keeping the prayer long around you) and ask if 5-minute is doable.
Now, I accept that in a meat processing plant they probably need to take off their soiled outer protective garment (apron, head covering, boots, etc), adding maybe a minute. But, in their industry a typical factory break of 15 minutes (as commonly demanded by union contract) should cover it.
I have not once claimed it is impossible. I said it is impractical and could not be expected to be the norm. You have not shown anything to the contrary and have not actually address the points I made on this topic.
OK we shall :-D
No Indonesia is not a poor country. It is rich in resources, least of all its people. There's so much potential here only if the people as individuals will break out of their mold and rise above their perceived lot in life. I've seen so much of this in small scales, but nothing beyond day to day events. Its people are intelligent, resourceful, strong, and they are survivors.
But the attitude of its people (in general, not 100% of the people are like this) is what makes it poor. The acceptance of status quo and not willing to fail in trying new things. The unwillingness to accept that there are better ways out there and that they can achieve it too.
Not that any of these are specific to Indonesia, but there are a large percentage of Indonesians as a people who fall in the above category. I see Indonesians as an exaggeration of the American culture (maybe others too, but I'm not familiar with them):
- the worship of someone perceived as "better", usually academia. While this happens in the US, it's very bad here. If you have an American or Australian education, what you'll say become gospel. While there's a lack of critical thinking in the US, it is almost non existent here
- individualist mentality. Look at how Indonesians drive/ride. It's 'me first'. People accuse Americans of individualistic behaviors?
I'm not saying these things to say Indonesians are mean and stupid or anything like that. I'm saying they have the potential and ability to be the next great Asian country. But will they work for it and grab hold of the opportunity?
I don't know.
Just wanted to point out that Indonesia actually does not have a lot of resources when you compare it to its population. It's better off than Japan but no where near the per capita level of America, yet alone Canada, Russia, Australia, ect. Indonesia would have a lot of resources if its population was only 10 million instead of 230 million.
They did not break any agreement. The muslim workers asked to have the break shifted from 9pm to 7pm. The management tried to compromise and shifted it to 8pm, because they felt that a 7pm break was to early given their starting time.
Please read your own link toward the bottom. They were initially allowed to break.
Except that it made their lunch break about 1/4 of the way through their work shift. I can understand why the management would not wish to do that. Also, what about the majority of the workers, who were catholic latino's who would rather have had a break in the middle of the work shift rather than shortly after it started?
So this is a political, not productivity issue. The locking of bathrooms and taping of drinking fountain points the same way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
take note of the appeal to law fallacy. It in no way supports your stance. Laws are not innately logical nor innately moral.
The law is the baseline. You can not be expected to wring productivity out of workers beyond what's allowed by the law. If you want absolute productivity, you'd do away with all sorts of provisions to protect workers because it harms productivity. You'd fire mothers of newborns and people serving jury duty and people called to deploy in the military.
If your point is that the law harms absolute productivity, then I agree. But I should add that productivity has to be balanced with people's rights.
Thanks for showing that I am right. Simply because the European practice of 30 day vacations also causes hardship does not mean that shifting the work week to no coincide with the rest of world doesn't cause hardship.
You even go so far as to state that shifting the work week in such a manner would be a challenge that multinationals would have to face in a country that did this. You state this while claiming that it doesn't cause any hardships or loss in productivity. Your own statement is oxymoronic.
You are not getting the point. The point is that multinational companies have to figure out a way to cope with many differences, and since different weekend days is just one of many, I don't think it's significant. USA is about 12 hours behind Indonesia, that means 8AM-5PM in the U.S. is 8PM-5AM in Indonesia. If the company insists on following only regular work hours and regular weekends, then their employees in New York will never talk on the phone to their employees in Jakarta. If they want to make it work, somebody somewhere must be working outside normal hours (and days).
Just wanted to point out that Indonesia actually does not have a lot of resources when you compare it to its population. It's better off than Japan but no where near the per capita level of America, yet alone Canada, Russia, Australia, ect. Indonesia would have a lot of resources if its population was only 10 million instead of 230 million.
Per capita, you may be right. But I count its people natural resources too. It has rich soil that can grow darn near anything, oil, coal, minerals. Oh did I mention 250 million of capable, intelligent people? True, they're not used to (for the most part) do any critical thinking or to think ahead more than living day to day. But the potential is there nonetheless.
Hombre de Maiz
22-11-10, 23:17
Just wanted to point out that Indonesia actually does not have a lot of resources when you compare it to its population. It's better off than Japan but no where near the per capita level of America, yet alone Canada, Russia, Australia, ect. Indonesia would have a lot of resources if its population was only 10 million instead of 230 million.
The first casualty of the Resource Trap are people's mind which are led to believe that a country is rich because of the natural resources that it possesses. You must get rid of this notion that people will get rich as soon as the stuff is mined out of the ground and sold. More often than not, natural resources in places with bad institutions, accountabilty and transparency deficits and bad law enforcement turn out to be curse rather than a blessing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaSl41AirQE
Please read your own link toward the bottom. They were initially allowed to break.
So this is a political, not productivity issue. The locking of bathrooms and taping of drinking fountain points the same way.
The law is the baseline. You can not be expected to wring productivity out of workers beyond what's allowed by the law. If you want absolute productivity, you'd do away with all sorts of provisions to protect workers because it harms productivity. You'd fire mothers of newborns and people serving jury duty and people called to deploy in the military.
If your point is that the law harms absolute productivity, then I agree. But I should add that productivity has to be balanced with people's rights.
You are not getting the point. The point is that multinational companies have to figure out a way to cope with many differences, and since different weekend days is just one of many, I don't think it's significant. USA is about 12 hours behind Indonesia, that means 8AM-5PM in the U.S. is 8PM-5AM in Indonesia. If the company insists on following only regular work hours and regular weekends, then their employees in New York will never talk on the phone to their employees in Jakarta. If they want to make it work, somebody somewhere must be working outside normal hours (and days).
"Workers say they initially had been allowed to break at sundown for food and water, but that changed Friday after complaints from non-Muslim employees who said they were forced to continue working while the Muslims were allowed the break, Clarke said. "
The problem came with favortism. The muslims were allowed to, effectively, take more breaks. The non muslims rightfully bitched about this. In an attempt to accomodate everyone with out disrupting the slaughterhouse, they moved the break up to 8pm. There was no agreement before this, they were simply allowed to do it until the non muslims complained. When they stopped allowing them to take a break and the issue was discussed, the management stated 8pm. The muslims refused and demanded 7pm. At 7:30 the muslims attempted to go pray despite managements instructions that they would have a break at 8pm. Management had shut off the water fountains and locked the bathroom doors preventing them from doing so and reopened them at the scheduled break time. The muslims got upset and a confrontation ensued. The muslims walked out and went on strike the next day. The management fired the workers who refused to work. A judge decided that the religious rights trump plant effeciency.
In any event, you claimed no one was fired, I posted this to show you that you were wrong. I don't feel like arguing the semantics of the article as it is not relevant.
I have not made any claim that prayer breaks should not be given. I simply stated that your assertion that they do not cause a significant impact on productivity is faulty.
I got your point perfectly fine. You do not get mine apparently as you are simply reiterating the same points again and not actually addressing the points I made. A loss of productivity is a loss of productivity, regardless of the cause of it. Stating that other issues also cause a loss of productivity does not weaken my statement.
An analogous argument that I think would clarify the error in your logic would be like this. I say "people sholdn't smoke because it can cause cancer". You then try to rebute my statement by saying "sunbathing also causes cancer". Do you see how your statement that multinationals have many things they must work around does not have any bearing on my statement that shifting the work week would cause problems (you stated as much yourself)?
The first casualty of the Resource Trap are people's mind which are led to believe that a country is rich because of the natural resources that it possesses. You must get rid of this notion that people will get rich as soon as the stuff is mined out of the ground and sold. More often than not, natural resources in places with bad institutions, accountabilty and transparency deficits and bad law enforcement turn out to be curse rather than a blessing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaSl41AirQE
Nice video but way to brief...
"Workers say they initially had been allowed to break at sundown for food and water, but that changed Friday after complaints from non-Muslim employees who said they were forced to continue working while the Muslims were allowed the break, Clarke said. "
The problem came with favortism. The muslims were allowed to, effectively, take more breaks. The non muslims rightfully bitched about this. In an attempt to accomodate everyone with out disrupting the slaughterhouse, they moved the break up to 8pm. There was no agreement before this, they were simply allowed to do it until the non muslims complained. When they stopped allowing them to take a break and the issue was discussed, the management stated 8pm. The muslims refused and demanded 7pm. At 7:30 the muslims attempted to go pray despite managements instructions that they would have a break at 8pm. Management had shut off the water fountains and locked the bathroom doors preventing them from doing so and reopened them at the scheduled break time. The muslims got upset and a confrontation ensued. The muslims walked out and went on strike the next day. The management fired the workers who refused to work. A judge decided that the religious rights trump plant effeciency.
Efficiency has nothing to do with this case, as the plant has previously allowed Muslims to take the break, which they wouldn't do if it means stopping the line or anything drastic that poses undue burden. It only becomes an issue when other people protests against it, not because the company can't afford the early break. In short, it is a political, not productivity issue.
Does keeping the bathroom unlocked and not taping the drinking fountain pose significant harm to productivity? Stopping people from using the bathroom in itself is highly questionable, but taping the drinking fountain and prevent people from even taking a sip of water is dehumanizing.
In any event, you claimed no one was fired, I posted this to show you that you were wrong. I don't feel like arguing the semantics of the article as it is not relevant.
I was wrong in stating nobody has ever been fired for praying, because I forgot that despite not posing significant productivity issue, if any, people can be fired for praying just because other people don't like it.
I have not made any claim that prayer breaks should not be given. I simply stated that your assertion that they do not cause a significant impact on productivity is faulty.
Of course you can argue that if everybody is Christian then there would be no issue at that plant. But following that line of thought if everybody is Muslim then there won't be a problem there either. The point is: diversity is a fact of life, so you just got to deal with it.
I got your point perfectly fine. You do not get mine apparently as you are simply reiterating the same points again and not actually addressing the points I made. A loss of productivity is a loss of productivity, regardless of the cause of it. Stating that other issues also cause a loss of productivity does not weaken my statement.
An analogous argument that I think would clarify the error in your logic would be like this. I say "people sholdn't smoke because it can cause cancer". You then try to rebute my statement by saying "sunbathing also causes cancer". Do you see how your statement that multinationals have many things they must work around does not have any bearing on my statement that shifting the work week would cause problems (you stated as much yourself)?
Ok, I will agree that difference in weekend days affects absolute productivity. An international company that keeps regular work hours would lose work time. It's just that an international company keeping strict regular work hours and days is not a viable company, but that's beside the point.
Ok, almost got you there...
so, we both agree that the company was able to allow only the muslims to take a break with out significantly impacting productivity BUT that's not fair is it? To pay a certain group of people the same wage for less work simply because of their religious beliefs is discriminatory. It was not discriminatory to deny them special breaks, it is discriminatory to do so.
I have not once claimed it is impossible. I said it is impractical and could not be expected to be the norm. You have not shown anything to the contrary and have not actually address the points I made on this topic.
The bottom line is it's either doable or not. You don't have to have super human speed to do a 5-minute prayer. Aside from the political case with that meat packing plant, approximately 7 million Muslims in the U.S. don't have an issue with prayer time, not the vast majority anyway.
In any U.S. establishment where an employee is allowed to pick his own time to take bathroom / smoke / water cooler break, a prayer break is not an issue because it's roughly as short. That is, unless somebody has an issue with the prayer itself.
Ok, almost got you there...
so, we both agree that the company was able to allow only the muslims to take a break with out significantly impacting productivity BUT that's not fair is it? To pay a certain group of people the same wage for less work simply because of their religious beliefs is discriminatory. It was not discriminatory to deny them special breaks, it is discriminatory to do so.
The article doesn't specifically say whether they got extra break, or whether they were simply put on a different break schedule. I suspect that if they receive the exact amount of break (but at a different time), the Somalis would have accepted it. Come to think of it, I think the article did mention they did accept the same amount of break if it's given at sundown.
STFU Show Them Fury Unleashed
STFU Shut the Freak Up
STFU Star Trek Federation University
STFU Sir, That's Freakin Ugly
You are assuming only that the impolite version is applied, however all of these are acceptable translations, now I do not think your use of what you are guessing at what was implied is appropriate for the young and tender, as well as female memebrs who read this forum
Based on the context, it's very reasonable to think that st*u stands for shut the **** up, especially since my confirmation was met with a resounding "yes". But, I understand your point.
Apologies to those who are offended.
Yep, don't you just love it.
Best thing you've said this month.
Best advice you'll get all year.
Since I'm not stooping to this level, I shall stop here. You win.
I like the cigarrette part...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXXJz5MU2sY&feature=fvst[/]
Hombre de Maiz
23-11-10, 08:44
Here again, in greater duration, is Paul Collier on the Bottom Billion (among which Indonesia is not), and the Resource Curse (which could still afflict Indonesia if the development is premised on extractive activities and commodity exports). If you can't watch it smoothly in streaming video, that should be an indication of the poor state of telecommunications infrastructure in Indonesia.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_collier_shares_4_ways_to_help_the_bottom_bill ion.html
Cryptkeeper
23-11-10, 20:09
Here again, in greater duration, is Paul Collier on the Bottom Billion (among which Indonesia is not), and the Resource Curse (which could still afflict Indonesia if the development is premised on extractive activities and commodity exports). If you can't watch it smoothly in streaming video, that should be an indication of the poor state of telecommunications infrastructure in Indonesia.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_collier_shares_4_ways_to_help_the_bottom_bill ion.html
Great video, thanks for sharing. Speak of what's on my mind, how democracy should works. The press / mass media should informing the people of what their government is doing and later the people becomes the controller of their governments (that includes of how they (the governments) are managing the resources). So far this is starting to happen in Indonesia, obviously we've seen more scandals in the last 12 years then what we've seen the entire 32 years of orde baru. But then again, it'll takes some times before people realizing that casting votes in elections is actually a matter of long term investments then just a mere 1-2 day meals.
And welcome back :D
The bottom line is it's either doable or not. You don't have to have super human speed to do a 5-minute prayer. Aside from the political case with that meat packing plant, approximately 7 million Muslims in the U.S. don't have an issue with prayer time, not the vast majority anyway.
In any U.S. establishment where an employee is allowed to pick his own time to take bathroom / smoke / water cooler break, a prayer break is not an issue because it's roughly as short. That is, unless somebody has an issue with the prayer itself.
Running a 6 minute mile is easily doable. I'd wager around 100,000,000 in the world can probably do it. However, you can't expect people to do this on a regular basis. So your assertion is simply illogical.
I already addressed this and have not argued against your claim that it is doable. Instead of addressing my rebutal you simply made an illogical simplification and left it at that.
Also, your assertion that 7 million muslims don't have a problem doing their daily prayers at work is not factual.
According to the US government, there are roughly 2 million muslim citizens and green card holders in America (1.8 according to the CIA). The 7 million figure is from CAIR and that's a list of all muslims who have resided in America at one time. There are generally around 4-6 million muslims in America at any given time, some on H visas but most non green card holders are students.
http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=843637&ct=1044159
Getting an accurate count on this is difficult as it's against American law to require people to identify their religious beliefs.
The only poll I could find on the topic stated that 34% of muslim men do their daily prayers, 28% do them at work. Women had a higher rate at 48% doing their daily prayers but no distinction was made for women who work.
According to the BLS, there is 1 working muslim per 4.9 muslim dependents. For simplicity sake, lets say there are 2 million muslims, there would be roughly 400,000 muslims working in America. 28% of them pray at work, or 112,000 muslims pray at work. Since women are more likely to pray and some of those workers are of course women, it would likely be higher than that but not that significantly.
Also, there are problems, as I have already shown. If you want, I can link google to you and you can browse through the numerous stories on this particular topic, such as muslims being fired at dell, wal mart, swift, ect. The reason for the lack of problems is in large part due to court intervention in favor of muslims right to prayer breaks as well as the bad publicity that goes along with any civil rights case.
Running a 6 minute mile is easily doable. I'd wager around 100,000,000 in the world can probably do it. However, you can't expect people to do this on a regular basis. So your assertion is simply illogical.
I already addressed this and have not argued against your claim that it is doable. Instead of addressing my rebutal you simply made an illogical simplification and left it at that.
Your rebuttal is that it's simply not practical to do a prayer within 5 minutes. The only valid way of confirming it is by experiment. I have seen it done many times by less than physically fit people, so I can't accept your assertion that it's impractical. The prayer is simply not that physically demanding. The requirement is also lenient; if you can't do the calisthenics, then you don't have to.
Doing the prayer and the prep in 3 minutes is pushing it, and you'd have to cut many corners. To do it in 5 minutes is hitting the bare minimum, but practical. People in Indonesia do it in 10, 15, even 30 minutes because they have no incentive to keep it short, and they have every incentive to stretch it out (paid break, pious appearance, etc.) Muslims in the U.S. have a strong incentive in keeping it short.
Also, your assertion that 7 million muslims don't have a problem doing their daily prayers at work is not factual.
According to the US government, there are roughly 2 million muslim citizens and green card holders in America (1.8 according to the CIA). The 7 million figure is from CAIR and that's a list of all muslims who have resided in America at one time. There are generally around 4-6 million muslims in America at any given time, some on H visas but most non green card holders are students.
http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=843637&ct=1044159
Getting an accurate count on this is difficult as it's against American law to require people to identify their religious beliefs.
The only poll I could find on the topic stated that 34% of muslim men do their daily prayers, 28% do them at work. Women had a higher rate at 48% doing their daily prayers but no distinction was made for women who work.
According to the BLS, there is 1 working muslim per 4.9 muslim dependents. For simplicity sake, lets say there are 2 million muslims, there would be roughly 400,000 muslims working in America. 28% of them pray at work, or 112,000 muslims pray at work. Since women are more likely to pray and some of those workers are of course women, it would likely be higher than that but not that significantly.
Also, there are problems, as I have already shown. If you want, I can link google to you and you can browse through the numerous stories on this particular topic, such as muslims being fired at dell, wal mart, swift, ect. The reason for the lack of problems is in large part due to court intervention in favor of muslims right to prayer breaks as well as the bad publicity that goes along with any civil rights case.
I can't do much googling just now, so I'll address the finer points of the statistics later.
Let's say I accept that only 112,000 Muslims in the U.S. pray at work, how many prayer-related incident can you find? How many are linked to productivity and how many are political? Looking at anecdotal examples it seems to me that most of the problems are related to plain old harrassment. I'm trying to define your "numerous".
I have to admit to being mildly titillated by this concept of speed prayer that Injun appears to be advocating. I have faith that God/Allah can handle any speed that is thrown at Him, but this "going through the motions as quickly as possible" appears to slightly whiff of meaningless ritual and definitely does detract from the solemnity of the "dialog" with the Almighty.
So is a Guinness Book entry for fastest rendition a serious proposition or merely an irrelevant (albeit amusing) distraction from more pertinent matters?
Productivity is defined as the ratio of output to input. Since time is an input, you can't discuss productivity without talking about time. The 5-minute prayer time is insignificant in terms of negative impact on productivity, but not irrelevant.
I don't need to judge whether a prayer is solemn or whether somebody is truly devoted. We are talking about productivity, and the relevant question is whether it's technically possible to do in 5 minutes. If you're on company time, it's only fair to keep your smoke/bathroom/water cooler/prayer break as short as possible, and American Muslims just do it without fanfare or calling the olympic committee or the Guinness book. If being visibly Muslim is sometimes enough to get you harassed, taking a prolonged prayer break can give detractors reason to get you fired. If you take a 45-minute break like Indonesian office boys, even a judge would rule it an undue burden to the company.
Hombre de Maiz
24-11-10, 23:40
I hate to rain on your parade, but extrapolating efficiency lapses among Muslims from the U.S. to Indonesia is fraught with great perils. For one, the work ethic is more stringent in the States. For two, the labor codes more relaxed so that you fire people more easily, making people think twice about slacking off. For three, Muslims are a minority in the States and majority here meaning that what passes for acceptable Indonesia will not be given a free pass in the U.S. For four, the role of religion in the workplace is more stringent in the U.S.
My sense is that the worst-case calculations in the U.S. will not even begin to approach the best-case scenarios in Indonesia. There are many factors that impinge on productivity. Productivity is not a function solely of the worker. It is also implicated with the environment, and by that account Indonesia simply does not provide an enabling enviroment.
Productivity is defined as the ratio of output to input. Since time is an input, you can't discuss productivity without talking about time. The 5-minute prayer time is insignificant in terms of negative impact on productivity, but not irrelevant.
I don't need to judge whether a prayer is solemn or whether somebody is truly devoted. We are talking about productivity, and the relevant question is whether it's technically possible to do in 5 minutes. If you're on company time, it's only fair to keep your smoke/bathroom/water cooler/prayer break as short as possible, and American Muslims just do it without fanfare or calling the olympic committee or the Guinness book. If being visibly Muslim is sometimes enough to get you harassed, taking a prolonged prayer break can give detractors reason to get you fired. If you take a 45-minute break like Indonesian office boys, even a judge would rule it an undue burden to the company.
No, not whether or not it's POSSIBLE but if it's realistic to claim that people in a working environment can do their daily prayers during a 5 minute break, as claimed. Again, I have stated the entire time that the prayer itself doesn't need more than 5 minutes but the preparation adds to that time. I have yet to see a single muslim simply drop to their knees right where they are and start praying.
Define what you believe would be a significant impact on productivity.
And again, it is being claimed that muslims in America pray at work on a regular basis, which studies show is not true, and that their doing so does not impact productivity, which is rather difficult to claim.
Also, it is illegal in America to fire some one for practicing their faith as long as it's not an undue hardship on the company.
Please elaborate on what you mean by harrassment and link the article claiming it as such.
I hate to rain on your parade, but extrapolating efficiency lapses among Muslims from the U.S. to Indonesia is fraught with great perils. For one, the work ethic is more stringent in the States. For two, the labor codes more relaxed so that you fire people more easily, making people think twice about slacking off. For three, Muslims are a minority in the States and majority here meaning that what passes for acceptable Indonesia will not be given a free pass in the U.S. For four, the role of religion in the workplace is more stringent in the U.S.
My sense is that the worst-case calculations in the U.S. will not even begin to approach the best-case scenarios in Indonesia. There are many factors that impinge on productivity. Productivity is not a function solely of the worker. It is also implicated with the environment, and by that account Indonesia simply does not provide an enabling enviroment.
Your assertion is further supported by the fact that only 1/3 of muslim men in America pray at work.
I hate to rain on your parade, but extrapolating efficiency lapses among Muslims from the U.S. to Indonesia is fraught with great perils. For one, the work ethic is more stringent in the States. For two, the labor codes more relaxed so that you fire people more easily, making people think twice about slacking off. For three, Muslims are a minority in the States and majority here meaning that what passes for acceptable Indonesia will not be given a free pass in the U.S. For four, the role of religion in the workplace is more stringent in the U.S.
My sense is that the worst-case calculations in the U.S. will not even begin to approach the best-case scenarios in Indonesia. There are many factors that impinge on productivity. Productivity is not a function solely of the worker. It is also implicated with the environment, and by that account Indonesia simply does not provide an enabling enviroment.
Well, that is exactly my point. The problem lies in the culture tolerant of low performance (in Indonesia), rather than in Islam itself.
Well, that is exactly my point. The problem lies in the culture tolerant of low performance (in Indonesia), rather than in Islam itself.
This is why I still refuse to "leave my western thinking and ideals". I fully believe that in order for Indonesia to succeed, it has to learn some standards and cultural behaviors of developed countries. Don't say that those values "don't fit" here. They're simply a guide to function with the rest of the world.
Customer service for one. Twice in 10 work days or less I ate at restaurants (two different ones) where it took an hour before I got my food. What I meant was it took a while to get the menu and it took a while longer for my order to be taken. I ate the food in much less time than it took for them to know what I want.
Indonesian people are not stupid, or inherently lazy or "backwards". They just live in an environment where personal responsibility is not encouraged, personal growth is not encouraged, and worst yet, no expectations for a better future. There is so much potential here with the people.
But then again, I've been known to be idealistic and overly optimistic.
No, not whether or not it's POSSIBLE but if it's realistic to claim that people in a working environment can do their daily prayers during a 5 minute break, as claimed. Again, I have stated the entire time that the prayer itself doesn't need more than 5 minutes but the preparation adds to that time. I have yet to see a single muslim simply drop to their knees right where they are and start praying.
I have explained several posts ago that a day prayer with four prostrations can be done in 3 minutes. The washing and other preps can be done in 2 minutes, so the total is 5. Again, have you asked any Muslim whether 5 minutes overall is realistic? Ask whether you have to be a world-class athlete to do it in 5.
Define what you believe would be a significant impact on productivity.
I have answered this question: when it becomes an undue burden. Now you can ask a judge what constitutes an undue burden.
And again, it is being claimed that muslims in America pray at work on a regular basis, which studies show is not true, and that their doing so does not impact productivity, which is rather difficult to claim.
While there's no exact data about the percentage of Muslims who pray at work, you can not claim that none of them do. Even if I accept your hypothetical number of 112,000, I expect more than 50% of them becoming a Title VII case if day prayer is inherently disruptive.
Also, it is illegal in America to fire some one for practicing their faith as long as it's not an undue hardship on the company.
That is what I've been saying all along. If it doesn't pose an undue hardship, then it doesn't significantly affect productivity. A judge would look at the company's practices and figure out whether prayer break is reasonable. If the company doesn't go after people who take smoke/bathroom/coffee break, then it can't single out prayer break as a reason for termination.
Please elaborate on what you mean by harrassment and link the article claiming it as such.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/business/24muslim.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/business/24muslim.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
I would say that harassment in the workplace while despicable is irrelevant to THIS discussion. The discussion originally is whether Indonesia is a poor country, and further whether Islam plays a role. I think for the most part, I hear that even those who blame Islam, is really blaming the behaviors and cultural norms. Whether they're caused by Islam or not, that's the argument here.
Prayer breaks by itself, in a reasonable company (even factories and plants with predetermined shifts) can be incorporated, even in the US. It will require those practicing the faith to make some accommodations as well as the company, both to communicate what each need.
In Indonesia, however, I feel, just as a few here do, that prayer breaks are being used as an excuse to be away from work. Because it's accepted and not expected to perform well in your duties, especially in the name of Islam, I truly believe productivity suffers more than it should in Indonesia.
This is why I still refuse to "leave my western thinking and ideals". I fully believe that in order for Indonesia to succeed, it has to learn some standards and cultural behaviors of developed countries. Don't say that those values "don't fit" here. They're simply a guide to function with the rest of the world.
Customer service for one. Twice in 10 work days or less I ate at restaurants (two different ones) where it took an hour before I got my food. What I meant was it took a while to get the menu and it took a while longer for my order to be taken. I ate the food in much less time than it took for them to know what I want.
Indonesian people are not stupid, or inherently lazy or "backwards". They just live in an environment where personal responsibility is not encouraged, personal growth is not encouraged, and worst yet, no expectations for a better future. There is so much potential here with the people.
But then again, I've been known to be idealistic and overly optimistic.
The problem is complicated, but I think it's a vicious circle where environment and culture reinforce each other in a bad way.
Indonesians in the U.S. is just as hard working as anybody, if not more. When your hard work is properly rewarded, then guess what, people start working hard. I know many Indonesian clocking ungodly hours of work because at the end of the day they can afford a more than decent living with their hard earned money. A guy I know works two full time jobs: a regular day job and a night-weekend job. He can afford a mortgage on a nice house and a beemer, and he doesn't even have a college degree. Try that in Indonesia.
... the relevant question is whether it's technically possible to do [the prayer] in 5 minutes.
Not so. It's technically possible for me to spit in your eye at 20 paces, but it's not something I wish to either attempt or debate. Let's be realistic.
Even if we do take your 5 minute example, that's 10 minutes per day, 50 minutes per 5-day work week and close to 50 hours per year - rather longer if we accept a more realistic time requirement. And that's still not including the Friday Sholat, the month-long fasting, the "God willing" mindset, etc.
The discussion originally is whether Indonesia is a poor country, and further whether Islam plays a role.
Correct.
I think for the most part, I hear that even those who blame Islam, is really blaming the behaviors and cultural norms. Whether they're caused by Islam or not, that's the argument here.
Not so. "Behaviours and cultural norms" are separate issues from the purely religious, although they may be significantly predicated on religion.
In Indonesia, however, I feel, just as a few here do, that prayer breaks are being used as an excuse to be away from work. Because it's accepted and not expected to perform well in your duties, nespecially in the name of Islam, I truly believe productivity suffers more than it should in Indonesia.
IMO "excuse" and "reason" are two separate although not necessarily mutually exclusive issues.
"I'm a Muslim and in a Muslim country, especially working for a non-Muslim company then I do as I please" is using religion as an excuse.
"I'm a Muslim and my religion requires that I pray five times a day, two of which just happen to fall within working hours" is a reason.
"I'm a Muslim and although I can pray in 5 minutes, I will goof off for an additional 25 minutes" is both a reason and an excuse.
Hombre de Maiz
25-11-10, 09:15
Well, that is exactly my point. The problem lies in the culture tolerant of low performance (in Indonesia), rather than in Islam itself.
Sorry, no, in all fairness to me I think your point was altogether different. You were focused on the productivity of the individual worker. If not, why go into a time-motion analysis of the Sholat process if in the end what matters is the environment?
Saying, as I did, that it is not solely a matter of the worker him/herself but also also a matter of the environment does not in any way cast aside the impact-- possibly minimal, possibly significant--of religion. One cannot, on one hand, put forward the environment as the primary explanation without looking at the impact of culture (political, economic, social in which religion is implicated) on that same environment. The sad fact is that Indonesia lacks a i.) culture of hard work, ii.) a culture of excellence and iii.) a culture of education in which religion far too often becomes a crutch and a pretext.
I don't know and haven't witnessed Indonesians in the U.S., but I believe that they are hard-working and ambitious. In another thread I brought up a study done on the earnings and productivity of overseas Philippinos. The study found out that their higher earnings could be explained by their greater productivity, and that their productivity declined sharply when they returned to their own country. A conclusion is that countries languish and underperform not primarily because of their low human capital, but rather due to the absence of an enabling in environment.
In the example of given by Injun of the guy with the house and the BMW, one can interpret that Indonesia is squandering its human capital by exporting it to the U.S. where the surplus of this guy's labor is captured. Indonesia is, by ommission and commission, giving away its resources and subsidizing the U.S. Yet, the idiotic political discourse here keeps harping on the tired and tedious tirade about multi-nationals raping the country of its resources. The primary rapist is the country's own political and economic elite.
A corollary is that in countries which low educational and technological levels, it is of the utmost importance to engineer the environment so as to squeeze the scarce productivity in the workforce. And in this task, the role of government is key. Once again, a principal gate to good government is through effective and impartial law enforcement and administration of justice.
Here in Indonesia, it is not solely the government which fails to create an enabling enviroment. It is also the people themselves who through their customs, acquired behaviors, mentalities (i.e. culture) shot themselves in the foot by not assisting in the creation of an environment in which they themselves can prosper.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. All cultures may be equal in respect and dignity. Nevertheless not all cultures are equally adept at material progress. We all carry within us the seeds of our own development and underdevelopment. Development is not ultimately something that is out there, but rather it something that it is within us.
On a separate though related issue, I came across these maps about the U.S. and the world. They note the degree of religiosity as tested through surveys by Gallup.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ztx77iknqkk8tksbouojiw.png
Internationally
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/tye8bwimokcehshejp5c7q.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Gallup_Religiosity_Index_2009.png/800px-Gallup_Religiosity_Index_2009.png
Let's test the idea the religion leads to ethics and moral behaviour by looking at the corruption perception indices of the top five most religious countries and the top five least religious countries
Gallup Top 5 Most Religious: Corruption Perception Index (2009)
Bangladesh: 2.4
Niger: 2.5
Yemen: 2.1
Indonesia: 2.8
Malawi: 3.3
Average score: 2.6
Gallup's Top 5 Least Religious: Corruption Perception Index (2009)
Estonia: 6.6
Sweden: 9.2
Denmark: 9.3
Japan: 7.7
Hong Kong: 8.2
Average score: 8.2
So, if religion is correlated with corruption, and corruption is correlated with development, what conclusion can we draw about the impact of religion on development?
Injun, I understand the point you are trying to make. But any company that sets standard costs by time and motion studies will always use an efficiency factor to try to budget what the real production will be. So 5 minutes at 85% efficiency is close to 6 minutes and at 70% is over 7 minutes. And both of those efficiency factors would be reasonable to use in any study to arrive at actual attainable production levels.
And I am interested in your answer to the following question. Do you believe taking everything into consideration that 2 similar manufacturing companies but one staffed with devout Muslims and the other staffed with a broad mix of people under the exact same management standards and rules will have equal efficiency and productivity? And based on reality and common sense please, not simply time and motion standards or what you would hope and wish it to be.
And I am interested in your answer to the following question. Do you believe taking everything into consideration that 2 similar manufacturing companies but one staffed with devout Muslims and the other staffed with a broad mix of people under the exact same management standards and rules will have equal efficiency and productivity? And based on reality and common sense please, not simply time and motion standards or what you would hope and wish it to be.
I know you addressed this to Injun, but I believe there's at least one variable you MUST add to the above. If the manufacturing plants are both in the US, then the answer would be fairly equal. If both are in Indonesia, the answer would be vastly different efficiency and productivity.
In Indonesia, the devout Muslim employees will take the standard Friday prayers and the daily prayers as "benefit". So their 8 hours of work per day is not 8 hours. NOT simply because they're Muslims, but because as Muslims IN INDONESIA, that's the expectation. If the company/country/citizens are used to producing 8 hours of work per day (regardless of how many hours they're at work, ie make up for lost time) then and only then the result would be the same.
I know you addressed this to Injun, but I believe there's at least one variable you MUST add to the above. If the manufacturing plants are both in the US, then the answer would be fairly equal. If both are in Indonesia, the answer would be vastly different efficiency and productivity.
In Indonesia, the devout Muslim employees will take the standard Friday prayers and the daily prayers as "benefit". So their 8 hours of work per day is not 8 hours. NOT simply because they're Muslims, but because as Muslims IN INDONESIA, that's the expectation. If the company/country/citizens are used to producing 8 hours of work per day (regardless of how many hours they're at work, ie make up for lost time) then and only then the result would be the same.
Basically agree. I wrote the question based on both the OP and the subsequent discussion regarding why Indonesia would have an asterisk as a Muslim country when being compared economically to other countries.
I think the Muslim indication is really not valid, as so many other factors such as social, cultural, and and just bad management practices have much more to do with lower productivity than being Muslim. I do think given the conditions of my question and located in Indonesia, the Muslim work force would have slightly lower productivity, but could also make up for it if the dedication was there.
I do think given the conditions of my question and located in Indonesia, the Muslim work force would have slightly lower productivity, but could also make up for it if the dedication was there.
Ah, that I think is the difference. You and I are optimists, at least I think you are while I know I am. I'm a firm believer in that if I have positive reinforcements, I can bring people up to their potential. This is why you and I think it's possible to change the mentality of 200 some million people.
The opposite of that have some merit too, though I refuse to act upon that belief. No matter how much positive reinforcement, people won't change.
If I ran a factory, I would make sure that good behaviors are rewarded appropriately and timely. I would make sure there's enough time for prayers and at the same time those who don't pray, get the same break time. However, I would expect the same amount of productivity. 8 hours of work is 8 hours of work. There's a minimum standard of productivity for 8 hours of work. Those who exceed it will get rewarded, those who are below, won't.
Having said that, I understand that in some factories, it cost both time and money to stop the production line for a break. In this case, either I have to change my processes, or have it be known to the workers why I have to run the factory a certain way.
Ah, that I think is the difference. You and I are optimists, at least I think you are while I know I am. I'm a firm believer in that if I have positive reinforcements, I can bring people up to their potential. This is why you and I think it's possible to change the mentality of 200 some million people.
The opposite of that have some merit too, though I refuse to act upon that belief. No matter how much positive reinforcement, people won't change.
If I ran a factory, I would make sure that good behaviors are rewarded appropriately and timely. I would make sure there's enough time for prayers and at the same time those who don't pray, get the same break time. However, I would expect the same amount of productivity. 8 hours of work is 8 hours of work. There's a minimum standard of productivity for 8 hours of work. Those who exceed it will get rewarded, those who are below, won't.
Having said that, I understand that in some factories, it cost both time and money to stop the production line for a break. In this case, either I have to change my processes, or have it be known to the workers why I have to run the factory a certain way.
As education improves, the religious influence in Indonesia will decline and a more rational culture will arise. Indonesia will improve, it just takes a long time for the culture to change.
Hombre de Maiz
26-11-10, 00:05
As education improves, the religious influence in Indonesia will decline and a more rational culture will arise. Indonesia will improve, it just takes a long time for the culture to change.
That's the theory, and the reality for most of the Western, Christian world. The question is whether the theory can be extended to the Muslim world which has proven more impervious, if not hostile, to secularism and to the sequestering of religion to the private sphere.
Let's test the idea the religion leads to ethics and moral behaviour by looking at the corruption perception indices of the top five most religious countries and the top five least religious countries
Gallup Top 5 Most Religious: Corruption Perception Index (2009)
Bangladesh: 2.4
Niger: 2.5
Yemen: 2.1
Indonesia: 2.8
Malawi: 3.3
Average score: 2.6
Gallup's Top 5 Least Religious: Corruption Perception Index (2009)
Estonia: 6.6
Sweden: 9.2
Denmark: 9.3
Japan: 7.7
Hong Kong: 8.2
Average score: 8.2
So, if religion is correlated with corruption, and corruption is correlated with development, what conclusion can we draw about the impact of religion on development?
Bangladesh: 2.4 - Islam 89.5%
Niger: 2.5 - Islam 90%+
Yemen: 2.1 - Islam 100% approx
Indonesia: 2.8 - Islam 86.1%
Malawi: 3.3 - Christianity 70%, Islam 20%
Are statistics telling us anything?
Or are they just damn lies?
Hombre de Maiz
27-11-10, 13:46
Appears that there are no takers, Grats. It's all great sound and fury when discussing the great virtues and merits of religion, but when it comes to the vices and demerits we get nothing. Read my signature line.
Appears that there are no takers, Grats. It's all great sound and fury when discussing the great virtues and merits of religion, but when it comes to the vices and demerits we get nothing. Read my signature line.
Surely your not surprised hombre ...
You want statistics? Let's do statistics the proper way.
Here is my source data so you can check it. I use Gallup 2009 survey on religion, Transparency International's 2009 CPI, and known geographical latitude of the capital city.
Country Relg Latitude CPI
Afghanistan 97 34.52 1.3
Albania 39 41.33 3.2
Algeria 95 36.70 2.8
Argentina 66 34.60 2.9
Armenia 73 40.18 2.7
Azerbaijan 50 40.43 2.3
Bahrain 94 26.22 5.1
Bangladesh 99 23.70 2.4
Belarus 34 53.92 2.4
Bolivia 89 16.50 2.7
Bosnia and Herzegovi 77 43.87 3.0
Brazil 87 15.75 3.7
Burundi 98 3.50 1.8
Cambodia 96 11.55 2.0
Cameroon 96 3.87 2.2
Canada 42 45.40 8.7
Chad 95 12.10 1.6
Chile 70 33.43 6.7
Colombia 83 4.65 3.7
Comoros 97 11.68 2.3
Congo 94 4.32 1.9
Costa Rica 79 9.92 5.3
Croatia 70 45.80 4.1
Cyprus 75 35.13 6.6
Denmark 19 55.72 9.3
Djibouti 98 11.60 2.8
Dominican Republic 87 19.00 3.0
Ecuador 82 0.15 2.2
Egypt 97 30.03 2.8
El Salvador 83 13.67 3.4
Estonia 16 59.42 6.6
France 30 48.85 6.9
Georgia 81 41.72 4.1
Germany 40 52.52 8.0
Ghana 95 5.55 3.9
Greece 71 38.00 3.8
Guatemala 88 14.63 3.4
Honduras 84 14.10 2.5
Hong Kong 24 22.27 8.2
Hungary 39 47.43 5.1
India 90 28.60 3.4
Indonesia 99 6.17 2.8
Iraq 84 33.33 1.5
Ireland 54 53.33 8.0
Israel 51 31.78 6.1
Italy 72 41.90 4.3
Japan 24 35.68 7.7
Kazakhstan 43 51.17 2.7
Kenya 94 1.27 2.2
Kuwait 91 29.37 4.1
Kyrgystan 72 42.87 1.9
Latvia 39 56.95 4.5
Lebanon 87 33.90 2.5
Lithuania 42 54.68 4.9
Luxembourg 39 49.60 8.2
Malawi 99 13.95 3.3
Malaysia 96 3.13 4.5
Mali 95 12.65 2.8
Malta 86 35.88 5.2
Mauritania 98 18.15 2.5
Mexico 73 19.05 3.3
Moldova 72 47.00 3.3
Montenegro 71 42.78 3.9
Morocco 97 34.03 3.3
Nepal 93 27.70 2.3
Nicaragua 84 12.15 2.5
Niger 99 13.53 2.9
Nigeria 96 9.07 2.5
Pakistan 92 33.67 2.4
Panama 88 8.97 3.4
Paraguay 92 25.27 2.1
Peru 84 12.05 3.7
Philippines 96 14.58 2.4
Poland 75 52.22 5.0
Qatar 95 25.30 7.0
Romania 84 44.42 3.8
Russia 34 55.75 2.2
Rwanda 95 1.95 3.3
Saudi Arabia 93 24.65 4.3
Senegal 96 14.67 3.0
Serbia 54 44.80 3.5
Singapore 70 1.28 9.2
Slovenia 47 46.05 6.6
South Africa 85 25.75 4.7
South Korea 43 37.58 5.5
Spain 49 40.43 6.1
Sri Lanka 99 6.90 3.1
Sudan 93 15.63 1.5
Sweden 17 59.35 9.2
Switzerland 41 46.95 9.0
Syria 89 33.50 2.6
Tajikistan 85 38.55 2.0
Tanzania 89 6.17 2.6
Thailand 97 13.75 3.4
Tunisia 93 36.83 4.2
Turkey 82 39.92 4.4
Turkmenistan 80 37.97 1.8
Uganda 93 0.32 2.5
Ukraine 46 50.45 2.2
United Arab Emirates 91 24.47 6.5
United Kingdom 27 51.50 7.7
United States 65 38.88 7.5
Uruguay 41 34.88 6.7
Uzbekistan 51 41.27 1.7
Venezuela 79 10.50 1.9
Vietnam 30 21.03 2.7
Yemen 99 15.35 2.1
Zambia 95 15.42 3.0
Zimbabwe 88 17.83 2.2
Here is the regression analysis on the hypothetical effect of religiosity on CPI. The R Squared is 0.36.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/septahedra/rlg-cpi.jpg
Here is the regression analysis on the hypothetical effect of religiosity on proximity to the equator. The R Squared is 0.50.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/septahedra/rlg-lat.jpg
According to the naked numbers, religiosity decreases CPI (increases corruption) just like it moves the capital cities closer to the equator. The geographical effect of religiosity on geographical location is actually stronger (the R squared is higher). The data and the statistical calculations are correct, yet you can't help but feel there's something wrong.
So that's why he's been so quiet for the past few days; not licking his wounds but planning his counter attack. :lol: And it's a real dooozie (sp). :nod:
Actually, Injun may have stumbled onto something (through the back door) ... something referred to as the Ant and the Grasshopper effect, where peoples in more polar latitudes suffer distinct seasons, one of which can be quite cold and barren. This requires focussed effort during the warmer months to be able to survive through the colder ones and a "God Willing" attitude unfortunately does little to ensure survival. Thus there could quite logically be a negative correlation between religiosity and distance from the equator.
Seeing as you have the figures in your PC, would you care to do a similar analysis between CPI (or economic advancement) and Islam and the same for Christianity. I suspect we'll see some fine "damn lies".
So that's why he's been so quiet for the past few days; not licking his wounds but planning his counter attack. :lol: And it's a real dooozie (sp). :nod:
Actually, Injun may have stumbled onto something (through the back door) ... something referred to as the Ant and the Grasshopper effect, where peoples in more polar latitudes suffer distinct seasons, one of which can be quite cold and barren. This requires focussed effort during the warmer months to be able to survive through the colder ones and a "God Willing" attitude unfortunately does little to ensure survival. Thus there could quite logically be a negative correlation between religiosity and distance from the equator.
Seeing as you have the figures in your PC, would you care to do a similar analysis between CPI (or economic advancement) and Islam and the same for Christianity. I suspect we'll see some fine "damn lies".
The data shows that the more religious a nation is, the closer it gets to the equator. The independent variable (religiosity) is on the X axis while the dependent (position from equator) is on the Y axis. If you take the number without applying some further analysis, then you have to accept that religiosity has the power to move countries closer to the equator.
And as usual, calling it a doozie has nothing to do with the discussion. So much for not using "coloured" words.
By the way, it was thanksgiving here, and I'll be damned if I spent it on the forum.
Bangladesh: 2.4 - Islam 89.5%
Niger: 2.5 - Islam 90%+
Yemen: 2.1 - Islam 100% approx
Indonesia: 2.8 - Islam 86.1%
Malawi: 3.3 - Christianity 70%, Islam 20%
Are statistics telling us anything?
Or are they just damn lies?
Just realised, that out of your 5 choices that I am working at the moment between two of them, maybe that it explains part of the reason.....
The data shows that the more religious a nation is, the closer it gets to the equator. The independent variable (religiosity) is on the X axis while the dependent (position from equator) is on the Y axis. If you take the number without applying some further analysis, then you have to accept that religiosity has the power to move countries closer to the equator.
It's unfortunate that you spoil some reasonable work with an incorrect conclusion. What you've statistically shown is an apparent correlation (for which the Ant and the Grasshopper effect would provide a possible logical explanation), nothing more. "The power of religiosity to move countries"? Nah.
And as usual, calling it a doozie has nothing to do with the discussion. So much for not using "coloured" words.
Definition: Dooozie (sp), Doozy - Something extraordinary or bizarre.
Sounds reasonable to me. What exactly is your problem?
Oh, and you seem to have missed this:
Seeing as you have the figures in your PC, would you care to do a similar analysis between CPI (or economic advancement) and Islam and the same for Christianity. I suspect we'll see some fine "damn lies".
It's unfortunate that you spoil some reasonable work with an incorrect conclusion. What you've statistically shown is an apparent correlation (for which the Ant and the Grasshopper effect would provide a possible logical explanation), nothing more. "The power of religiosity to move countries"? Nah.
It's unfortunate that you spoil some reasonable work with an incorrect conclusion. What you've statistically shown is an apparent correlation (for which people become religious because things are less predictable and orderly in developing & more corrupt nations would provide a possible logical explanation), nothing more. "The power of religiosity to increase corruption"? Nah.
Definition: Dooozie (sp), Doozy - Something extraordinary or bizarre.
Sounds reasonable to me. What exactly is your problem?
There's no need to call it anything or making it personal. Just stick with the numbers and analysis.
Oh, and you seem to have missed this:
I didn't. I expect people to do their own homework.
Doozie, is a perfectly acceptable common usage English language, although originating from slang, it is a commonly used and accepted expression.
one of my dear departed mum's favouriite expressions meaning something very special.
Grats complemented you and you took his compliment as an insult ...... GREAT
Doozie, is a perfectly acceptable common usage English language, although originating from slang, it is a commonly used and accepted expression. One of my dear departed mum's favourite expressions meaning something very special.
Grats complemented you and you took his compliment as an insult ...... GREAT
Thank you Kim (and Mika).
The data shows that the more religious a nation is, the closer it['s capital city] gets to the equator. The independent variable (religiosity) is on the X axis while the dependent (position from equator) is on the Y axis. If you take the number without applying some further analysis, then you have to accept that religiosity has the power to move countries closer to the equator.
You realize, Injun, that if you're correct and can fine tune your results to predict how much religiosity in Indonesia needs to be increased/decreased to move its capital 100km south to Pelabuhanratu - you could be in line for a Nobel Prize!
It's unfortunate that you spoil some reasonable work with an incorrect conclusion. What you've statistically shown is an apparent correlation (for which people become religious because things are less predictable and orderly in developing & more corrupt nations would provide a possible logical explanation), nothing more. "The power of religiosity to increase corruption"? Nah.
Care to repeat ... in English?
I expect people to do their own homework.
Fair comment. But do I detect a faint twinge of terror at what you might discover???
well I did my analysis, and data manipulation and correlated the data ( welll actually I did a google search )
just thought you might be interested into the correlation between IQ and religous importance to nations, results are quite interesting
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
Also a nice gallup report linking poverty and religous importance
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx
this I think speaks for itself
Hombre de Maiz
28-11-10, 18:18
For Indonesian tastes as of late it seems Jakarta is still too far from the equator. Maybe the capital can be moved to Pontianak or Manado....
Injun, I'm interested to know what you actually do for a living, seriously!
As for using Google to reinforce/backup your{many}points of view, that has been obvious to me for some time, but to be fair, don't most of us? ... I certainly do. {usually to check my Medical posts}
Doozie, is a perfectly acceptable common usage English language, although originating from slang, it is a commonly used and accepted expression.
one of my dear departed mum's favouriite expressions meaning something very special.
Grats complemented you and you took his compliment as an insult ...... GREAT
Doozy as I understand it is "weird". If it means different to you then I offer my apology. After all the previous ad hominem from him I guess I am a bit prejudiced.
In any case sticking to the facts and numbers is the best way of moving the discussion forward.
In case you guys missed my point entirely, here it is:
Correlation does not imply causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation).
http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm
Just showing that there's a correlation between religiosity and CPI is not enough to draw a conclusion that religiosity affects CPI. Just because there's a correlation between religiosity and latitude is not enough to draw a conclusion that religiosity affects latitude.
Injun, I'm interested to know what you actually do for a living, seriously!
As for using Google to reinforce/backup your{many}points of view, that has been obvious to me for some time, but to be fair, don't most of us? ... I certainly do. {usually to check my Medical posts}
Let's just say that a little bit of data analysis is part of my job.
Hombre de Maiz
29-11-10, 05:57
Lest it be lost on those awestruck and left speechless by regression analysis (a tool that any social science or business undergraduate student would have mastered), the plain fact of the matter is that no one here claimed causation. That is, the regression analysis was used to refute something that was never asserted. The hypothesis was that religiosity did not necessarily lead to moral behaviour (as measured by CPI). The hypothesis was not that religiosity caused immoral behaviour.
Your analysis, if anything, adds credence to the original hypothesis, but instead you are using it now to refute an hypothesis that was never advanced. Your analysis showed the ease with which data analysis can confound people into forgetting the hypotheses being tested, thereby enabling the data analyst to change the subject.
Doozy as I understand it is "weird". If it means different to you then I offer my apology.
Thank you.
After all the previous ad hominem from [that man ... Gratilla] I guess I am a bit prejudiced.
As previously mentioned (and conveniently ignored by yourself), an ad hominem requires, by definition, that the original premise be valid. ie
An ad hominem is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. [Wikipedia]
My "ad hominem" linked a dishonest debating tactic [ie your original premise] to your persistent use of dishonest debating tactics [ie your "character"] - something that you have been pulled up for a number of times by others.
By an amusing irony your (groundless) attack was, in fact, ad hominem.
You really do have a sense of humour.
In any case sticking to the facts and numbers is the best way of moving the discussion forward.
There's hope for you yet.
Lest it be lost on those awestruck and left speechless by regression analysis (a tool that any social science or business undergraduate student would have mastered),
Yeah, egg of Columbus.
the plain fact of the matter is that no one here claimed causation. That is, the regression analysis was used to refute something that was never asserted. The hypothesis was that religiosity did not necessarily lead to moral behaviour (as measured by CPI). The hypothesis was not that religiosity caused immoral behaviour.
Your analysis, if anything, adds credence to the original hypothesis, but instead you are using it now to refute an hypothesis that was never advanced. Your analysis showed the ease with which data analysis can confound people into forgetting the hypotheses being tested, thereby enabling the data analyst to change the subject.
You are careful to not come all out and say religiosity causes corruption and slows development. However, I think you are counting on people's ignorance on the difference of correlation and causation. You egg them along to arrive at a conclusion, without warning them that correlation does not imply causation. I'm simply here to show the layman that your implied hypothesis is not airtight just because the numbers look nice.
Let me quote you:
So, if religion is correlated with corruption, and corruption is correlated with development, what conclusion can we draw about the impact of religion on development?
The correct conclusion is: we don't have enough information. But unless people understands correlation does not imply causation, they can very easily conclude that religion impacts development negatively.
Correlation does not imply causation, but most people forget the difference between causation and correlation. Especially with pretty charts and complicated numbers. Then if the presenter is clever with their words, and/or has a lot of letters behind their name, we tend to throw critical thinking out the window.
I've used this tactic before, throwing numbers and charts and try to show that at least many of my audience will agree with the correlation. Then I can show that there is a definite disconnect of causation, that there is no way the two can be related in a cause-effect relationship.
That's exactly where this discussion is at now. Someone showing what I think was an initial step into showing correlations and then later will show that there is no causation.
Then again, that's what I think because that's the positive way to look at this whole thing. And one of the ways to see this whole thread as a discussion rather than a bunch of school kids being "cerewet" with high emotions. :-D
However the correlation does seem to match, and without any kind of factual based cause and effect, thus rather then relying on experience it would certainly appear that religious views and poverty and corruption are in some way linked, as supported by the numbers.
The question is rather how?
To say that they are not needs justification and an explanation as to why we see this correlation.
Without hard data we cannot support nor refute the data, other than to say "it fits"
If it smells like S**t, looks like S**t, tastes like S**t, guess what it is most likely a big pile of poo
Actually, you're right. For my own belief, there is a correlation between religious views and poverty, but not in the way most people think. I believe that the popularity of strong religions (Mormonism, Islam) that provides seemingly easy ways to succeed within the population of developing countries is caused by the population's need for something else to blame. Unlike the more developed world, the opportunities to succeed in Indonesia is much more rare. So rather than trying and failing often, it's easier to say that "it's God's will", and that if one was to succeed in religion, at least they'll get the reward in afterlife.
Corruption and poverty, surely you can see the link. At least in a social science kind of way. When one sees so much poverty, and now in a position to get out and rise above it, one would take any and all opportunity to do so (in general, not everyone is like this). Also, people might not see some things as corruption, but more like services rendered. So it could be a different definition of the word. Not literal definition, but socio-economic definition, a cultural definition.
Sorry I just reread the above, it sounds more like drivel. I'm not very eloquent today (ever? ;-))
As previously mentioned (and conveniently ignored by yourself), an ad hominem requires, by definition, that the original premise be valid. ie
You conveniently ignored that by definition an ad hominem does not require the original premise to be valid. I'll quote Webster again.
Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad+hominem
Now show me just one credible source that says whether or not it's ad hominem depends on the validity of the premise.
An ad hominem is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. [Wikipedia]
My "ad hominem" linked a dishonest debating tactic [ie your original premise] to your persistent use of dishonest debating tactics [ie your "character"] - something that you have been pulled up for a number of times by others.
By an amusing irony your (groundless) attack was, in fact, ad hominem.
You really do have a sense of humour.
If I'm a movie star who profits from a soap commercial, you can question my assertion that the soap is superior. If I'm a communist, you can question my assertion that unions are good for the nation. In these cases ad hominem is not fallacious.
However, I'm nobody. Your ad hominem against me is simply fallacious.
In any case the contrast is striking between the way elithium carried out his debate and yours. He sticks with the arguments and facts and figures, while you mostly worry yourself about judging me with many subjective words.
Hombre de Maiz
29-11-10, 09:59
My use of precise words and proper formulation and phrasing are construed as proof of an attempt at deceit? That's quite rich.
But, in any case, that is subjective interpretation. What is not subjective interpretation is that the regression purports to disprove something that was not asserted. The regression is a red-herring that shifts the focus away from trying to understand and explain why there is a link, acknowledged by all but one person here, between religiosity and the relative absence of corruption.
You conveniently ignored that by definition an ad hominem does not require the original premise to be valid. I'll quote Webster again. Now show me just one credible source that says whether or not it's ad hominem depends on the validity of the premise
Let's start with your populist, but hardly accurate Merriam-Webster:
Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made#1, above, is only half a definition; #2 refers to "contentions"; if these contentions were either false or non-existent then a Merriam-Webster-Injun definition of ad hominen would be no different to the definition for a simple insult, wouldn't it. [Rhetorical - no answer required.]
Common misconceptions: Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy [Wikipedia]
Let's take a look at some more credible definitions:
- An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. [Wikipedia]
- Argumentum ad Hominem: the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. [http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html]
- An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Enough? QED.
You may be interested to know that your recent tactic of echoing or parroting my words in attempt gain credibility is actually an ad hominem variation - an Argumentum ad Hominem tu Quoque. Look it up.
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Priceless! :lol::lol::lol:
I think there is ample evidence to prove that religiosity does not prevent corruption.
Hombre de Maiz
29-11-10, 16:24
You got a regression to go with that?
Let's start with your populist, but hardly accurate Merriam-Webster:
#1, above, is only half a definition; #2 refers to "contentions"; if these contentions were either false or non-existent then a Merriam-Webster-Injun definition of ad hominen would be no different to the definition for a simple insult, wouldn't it. [Rhetorical - no answer required.]
Common misconceptions: Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy [Wikipedia]
Let's take a look at some more credible definitions:
- An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. [Wikipedia]
- Argumentum ad Hominem: the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. [http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html]
- An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Enough? QED.
You may be interested to know that your recent tactic of echoing or parroting my words in attempt gain credibility is actually an ad hominem variation - an Argumentum ad Hominem tu Quoque. Look it up.
Plenty of words to quote, it doesn't change the fact that I had premises and contentions. Claiming they don't exist do not make them so. My premise was Islamic rituals do not have significant impact on productivity. Other people have challenged that premise, so it can't be "non existent" for that means they have challenged that which doesn't exist.
None of your quotes say anything about the validity of the premise.
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Priceless! :lol::lol::lol:
I see, so some of your words weren't ad hominem, they were personal abuse. That's even worse. Ad hominem is still somewhat related to the topic, but personal abuse was attacking the person regardless of the topic, like when you told me to st*u.
You can say anything, but the fact that other people are entirely capable of discussing the exact same topic without getting personal speaks for itself.
... Doesn't look like I'm going to recieve a response to my query, It's an innocent enough question which makes me wonder why not? ...:confused2:
Oh well, tidak apa2 and carrry on with the 'debate' guys, I for one haven't a clue what you are all on about, :bored: though I can relate to the term 'red herring', it's a tactic that was used in another thread, remember? ...:whistle:
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Priceless! :lol::lol::lol:
That is great, and yet again, injun huffs and puffs yet avoids the point.
*snigger*
None of your quotes say anything about the validity of the premise.
Correct - for the simple reason that there was no valid premise.
Let me repeat:
My "ad hominem" linked a dishonest debating tactic [ie your original "premise"] to your persistent use of dishonest debating tactics [ie your "character"] - something that you have been pulled up for a number of times by others.
I see, so some of your words weren't ad hominem, they were personal abuse. That's even worse. Ad hominem is still somewhat related to the topic, but personal abuse was attacking the person regardless of the topic, like when you told me to st*u.
In the absence of single-syllable alternatives, let me repeat:
My "ad hominem" linked a dishonest debating tactic [ie your original "premise"] to your persistent use of dishonest debating tactics [ie your "character"] - something that you have been pulled up for a number of times by others.
There's hope for you yet.
My mistake?
Correct - for the simple reason that there was no valid premise.
The fact is I have a point, a premise, or a contention. Other people see it plainly and discussed it properly without getting personal. Whether or not you think it's valid does not justify ad hominem and personal attack. The validity of the premise is decided by the facts, not by what you think about me.
I should thank Elithium and others for proving that it's entirely possible to discuss this subject without getting personal. His example speaks louder than your personal attacks.
If this thread reach 20 pages, I'll win the lottery, soon enough....
... Doesn't look like I'm going to recieve a response to my query, It's an innocent enough question which makes me wonder why not? ...:confused2:
Oh well, tidak apa2 and carrry on with the 'debate' guys, I for one haven't a clue what you are all on about, :bored: though I can relate to the term 'red herring', it's a tactic that was used in another thread, remember? ...:whistle:
I did reply to you, it's several pages back. To be more specific, I'm a business analyst.
The fact is I have a point, a premise, or a contention. Other people see it plainly and discussed it properly without getting personal. Whether or not you think it's valid does not justify ad hominem and personal attack. The validity of the premise is decided by the facts, not by what you think about me.
Who are these "other people"? "Other people" have contradicted your "understanding" of ad hominem and yet you still persist in the phallusy.
I have proven it ... the consensus is that Islamic rituals by themselves do not pose significant productivity burden. If they do in Indonesia, the problem is tied to Indonesian attitude toward religion.
You have proven it? Because you say so? You've proven nothing. Your main contribution was to relegate daily prayers to the equivalent of a smoke break and suggest that Muslims pray faster - an insult to the dignity of Islam, IMO.
I should thank Elithium and others for proving that it's entirely possible to discuss this subject without getting personal. His example speaks louder than your personal attacks.
Ah, ah, dubious debate tactic #27 - appeal to third parties. I note that Elithuim is no longer here. Now that could be because of an extended Thanksgiving break, but if I were a betting man, I'd plumb for "he's given up trying to have a reasonable dialog".
Oh, and BTW, who are these mythical "others"?
Who are these "other people"? "Other people" have contradicted your "understanding" of ad hominem and yet you still persist in the phallusy.
There's no other people contradicting the dictionary definition of ad hominem that I presented. On the other hand, other people had a discussion with me without getting personal. It's just so happen that you don't have the capacity to discuss this issue without getting personal.
You have proven it? Because you say so? You've proven nothing. Your main contribution was to relegate daily prayers to the equivalent of a smoke break and suggest that Muslims pray faster - an insult to the dignity of Islam, IMO.
I have shown, through examples in the united states, that Islamic rituals pose no significant burden to productivity.
- Fasting only affects productivity when you allow it to. Despite fasting for 12-14 hours the only issue that arises (political in nature) with Somali factory workers in the U.S. was timing for the break. Productivity is not an issue.
- Hajj is only done once a lifetime, and even in Indonesia it can be covered by accumulated vacation time. To top it off, you don't have to go unless you can afford the time off and money.
- Friday prayer can be covered by a typical 1 hour lunch break. The only accomodation needed is a time shift. I linked videos showing the length of a friday sermon, which didn't reach half an hour.
- The noon and mid afternoon daily prayer are each doable in 3 minutes, 5 if you count the wash. A typical 10-minute smoke/coffee/water cooler break can easily cover it.
There was a long discussion about it, and I'm not the only one who thinks that way. The points have refuted your original assertion that Islamic rituals significantly affect productivity. Your contribution to that discussion were simply personal attacks against me, accusations that I insulted the dignity of Islam, and declaring no proof.
Ah, ah, dubious debate tactic #27 - appeal to third parties. I note that Elithuim is no longer here. Now that could be because of an extended Thanksgiving break, but if I were a betting man, I'd plumb for "he's given up trying to have a reasonable dialog".
You are working hard to show that it's all about me, I'm just showing that it isn't just me.
Oh, and BTW, who are these mythical "others"?
I'll show you later. Just because you choose to ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Edit, here they are:
Injun, I understand the point you are trying to make. But any company that sets standard costs by time and motion studies will always use an efficiency factor to try to budget what the real production will be. So 5 minutes at 85% efficiency is close to 6 minutes and at 70% is over 7 minutes. And both of those efficiency factors would be reasonable to use in any study to arrive at actual attainable production levels.
And I am interested in your answer to the following question. Do you believe taking everything into consideration that 2 similar manufacturing companies but one staffed with devout Muslims and the other staffed with a broad mix of people under the exact same management standards and rules will have equal efficiency and productivity? And based on reality and common sense please, not simply time and motion standards or what you would hope and wish it to be.
I know you addressed this to Injun, but I believe there's at least one variable you MUST add to the above. If the manufacturing plants are both in the US, then the answer would be fairly equal. If both are in Indonesia, the answer would be vastly different efficiency and productivity.
In Indonesia, the devout Muslim employees will take the standard Friday prayers and the daily prayers as "benefit". So their 8 hours of work per day is not 8 hours. NOT simply because they're Muslims, but because as Muslims IN INDONESIA, that's the expectation. If the company/country/citizens are used to producing 8 hours of work per day (regardless of how many hours they're at work, ie make up for lost time) then and only then the result would be the same.
Basically agree. I wrote the question based on both the OP and the subsequent discussion regarding why Indonesia would have an asterisk as a Muslim country when being compared economically to other countries.
I think the Muslim indication is really not valid, as so many other factors such as social, cultural, and and just bad management practices have much more to do with lower productivity than being Muslim. I do think given the conditions of my question and located in Indonesia, the Muslim work force would have slightly lower productivity, but could also make up for it if the dedication was there.
er'!
Typical, any opportunity to bait someone with no real personal contribution to the debate, oh I forgot the 'snigger', I suppose that counts for something...as in self disclosure, revealing the inner self so to speak!
While the cats away, the tikus will play!
selamat malam, dan mimpi manis ...
Edited after re reading what I posted yesterday!
... and again, despite the fact that you do take up opportunities to attack people Billy, I'm out of line by reacting and for that I apologise, I was angry.
I did reply to you, it's several pages back. To be more specific, I'm a business analyst.
Fair enough, I missed it... :redface:
"Let's just say that a little bit of data analysis is part of my job." is not quite the same as 'To be more specific, I'm a business analyst.", yes I know I'm probably splitting hairs but I did ask a specific question and who can understand what 'data' you analyse based upon your first reply, {should I go to bed now, and just leave you guys to carry on ... ?} :wink2:
There's no other people contradicting the dictionary definition of ad hominem that I presented.
And what did you present exactly? Ah:
You conveniently ignored that by definition an ad hominem does not require the original premise to be valid. (sic ie a valid premise).
Now show me just one credible source that says whether or not it's ad hominem depends on the validity of the premise.
- An ad hominem is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic of the person advocating the premise.
- Argumentum ad Hominem: the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.
- An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author.
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html (http://plover.net/%7Ebonds/adhominem.html)
Priceless! :lol::lol::lol:
None of your quotes say anything about the validity of the premise.
Doh! Do you ever read what you write?
I have shown, through examples in the united states, that Islamic rituals pose no significant burden to productivity.
If you have, then you have been wasting your time.
The original proposition was:
With respect, I believe we shouldn't shy away from considering Islam as being a contributory factor/cause for Indonesia's poor economic position.
And I don't think that (even) you are insisting that:
1) Islam (in the workplace) is practiced the same way in the US and Indonesia and/or
2) The economic situation in the US is comparable to that in Indonesia.
Or maybe you are.
Yes, its almost 20 pages, I'm gonna get lucky pretty soon.... Amen...
Yes, its almost 20 pages, I'm gonna get lucky pretty soon.... Amen...
\only 8 with my settings////
And what did you present exactly? Ah:
Doh! Do you ever read what you write?
You can flip it any which way, but by definition an ad hominem does not depend on the validity of the statement. Your act of attacking my person instead of the argument is an ad hominem, or worse, simple personal abuse.
If you have, then you have been wasting your time.
The original proposition was:
And I don't think that (even) you are insisting that:
1) Islam (in the workplace) is practiced the same way in the US and Indonesia and/or
2) The economic situation in the US is comparable to that in Indonesia.
Or maybe you are.
This is your original position:
With respect, I believe we shouldn't shy away from considering Islam as being a contributory factor/cause for Indonesia's poor economic position; a religio-cultural reason being way different from the colour of one's skin.
Examples:
- Friday Sholat: This decreases the working week by upto half a day (ie 10%) and sometimes upto a whole day (ie 20%) per week. No extra work time in lieu is expected.
- Prayer Times: Many Muslims take time off for this, (many don't).
- Fasting during Ramadan: A real or implied "excuse" for working slowly.
- The Haj: Paid "vacation"
- Etc
So, in effect, Islam could very well be a real cause for a very significant decrease in efficiency/productivity.
My position is that Islam is only an excuse when you make it one. If Islam + USA = no significant loss of productivity, but Islam + Indonesia = loss of productivity, then logically the problem is not with Islam.
You can flip it any which way, but by definition an ad hominem does not depend on the validity of the statement. Your act of attacking my person instead of the argument is an ad hominem, or worse, simple personal abuse.
So English is your native language and you are familiar not only with its usage, context, and full meaning...... Er NO
yet another example that clearly you do not possess such a high degree of the english language as you think.
You can flip it any which way, but by definition an ad hominem does not depend on the validity of the statement. Your act of attacking my person instead of the argument is an ad hominem, or worse, simple personal abuse.
Aha, so now at last you're agreeing that an "argument" (or premise) is required.
Congratulations, one giant leap for Injun, one small step for humanity.
Step number 2: there is little point in attacking the hominem if the premise is a pile of cr*p.
Step number 3: stating that you practise "dishonest debating" tactics is not "simpl[y] personal abuse".
Keep on trekking, you're getting there (albeit extremely slowly).
So English is your native language and you are familiar not only with its usage, context, and full meaning...... Er NO
yet another example that clearly you do not possess such a high degree of the english language as you think.
English might not be my native language, but logic is. You can't say "two plus two equals six" and claim my disagreement to that statement is due to my non-native understanding of English.
An ad hominem attacks the validity of a premise by linking it to the speaker's character or other traits. It boggles my mind that somebody actually believes that simply by declaring the premise "not valid" or "non existent" allows him to personally attack other people. That is simply not the accepted academic definition of the term.
Aha, so now at last you're agreeing that an "argument" (or premise) is required.
Congratulations, one giant leap for Injun, one small step for humanity.
Step number 2: there is little point in attacking the hominem if the premise is a pile of cr*p.
Step number 3: stating that you practise "dishonest debating" tactics is not "simpl[y] personal abuse".
Keep on trekking, you're getting there (albeit extremely slowly).
The argument has always existed. Your saying it non-existent or "pile of cr*p" does not make it so, and most certainly does not justify an attack on my person.
This is your original position: [... ... ... ... ...]
Correct, but I thought it pedantic to repeat the whole post at length.
My position is that Islam is only an excuse when you make it one. If Islam + USA = no significant loss of productivity, but Islam + Indonesia = loss of productivity, then logically the problem is not with Islam.
My proposition very clearly stated "a contributory factor/cause for Indonesia's poor economic position".
But let's humour your argument and single-step verrrry slowly.
Islam + USA (which does not allow Islam to be used as a disruptive excuse) = no significant loss of productivity.
Islam + Indonesia (which does allow Islam to be used as a disruptive excuse) = loss of productivity.
If there were no Islam, there would be no Islamic excuse.
Are we there yet?
Correct, but I thought it pedantic to repeat the whole post at length.
Not as simple. Your previous post omitted the statement containing the "significant" word.
My proposition very clearly stated "a contributory factor/cause for Indonesia's poor economic position".
And my position is that Islam is simply one of many excuses, so it is not a root cause.
But let's humour your argument and single-step verrrry slowly.
Islam + USA (which does not allow Islam to be used as a disruptive excuse) = no significant loss of productivity.
Islam + Indonesia (which does allow Islam to be used as a disruptive excuse) = loss of productivity.
If there were no Islam, there would be no Islamic excuse.
Are we there yet?
Are you sure you were worried about being pedantic?
If there is no Islam, people will invent other excuses.
And my position is that Islam is simply one of many excuses, so it is not a root cause.
There you go again, DDT (Dishonest Debating Tactic - putting words in the opponent's mouth).
I didn't say root cause, I said contributory factor/cause. Look!
My proposition very clearly stated "a contributory factor/cause for Indonesia's poor economic position".
Are you sure you were worried about being pedantic?
I'm not in the least concerned about your being pedantic.
If there is no Islam, people will invent other excuses.
And when there is no Islam, you may continue with your hypothetical premise.
English might not be my native language, but logic is.
An ad hominem attacks the validity of a premise by linking it to the speaker's character or other traits. It boggles my mind that somebody actually believes that simply by declaring the premise "not valid" or "non existent" allows him to personally attack other people. That is simply not the accepted academic definition of the term.
It's gratifying that you now accept the accepted academic definition that an ad hominem:
a) requires a premise,
b) attacks the validity of the premise by
c) linking it to the speaker's character or other traits.
Now we're on a roll (1 for 1), let's take your incredible logic to the next level.
Your first reference to my "ad hominem" was in msg #61:
Because I'm still discussing whether "knee-jerk apologetic/emotional" is relevant. Gratilla can level an ad-hominem to me, and when I answer specifically about that ad hominem ...
Which refers to my mention of "knee jerk etc" in msg #41:
In any event knee-jerk apologetic/emotional responses belong elsewhere.
My "knee jerk etc" refers to a response and not to you.
Does your logic still claim ad hominem? Or even a personal insult?
<You really should do your own homework.>
Dang !!! I think I shoudl change the title thread into "fight club" instead.....pretty soon....
Wait a sec, I'm gonna win a lottery, its reaching page 20, yay
waarmstrong
01-12-10, 20:05
It seems to me that a logical extension of Injun's "its not Islam" position, is that Indonesians are simply lazy from the get go. Is that the point you are trying to make?
It seems to me that a logical extension of Injun's "its not Islam" position, is that Indonesians are simply lazy from the get go. Is that the point you are trying to make?
Me?
No!
Indonesians are simply lazy from the get go. Is that the point you are trying to make?
Actually, I'll make that point. Plus Americans are lazy. And Mexicans. And Chinese. And Japanese. And many others.
I've heard and have people prove by examples (small sample size, mind you. But still convincing) that citizens of the above countries are lazy.
Humans by nature are lazy. We'd spend the time to create the tools to make our lives easier rather than just do the work.
So I'm really saying some Indonesians are lazy. Some Americans are lazy. Some Chinese are lazy, etc etc etc.
There you go again, DDT (Dishonest Debating Tactic - putting words in the opponent's mouth).
I didn't say root cause, I said contributory factor/cause. Look!
That it is not a root cause is my position, not yours.
And when there is no Islam, you may continue with your hypothetical premise.
What hypothetical? Islam exists in the U.S. and it's not a significant productivity problem. It's not hypothetical, it's actual.
If a guy is always late for work citing "macet", do you seriously believe that macet really is a cause? Do you think macet really contributes to his tardiness thus mitigating his fault? I don't, and the teachers at my old school didn't either.
It seems to me that a logical extension of Injun's "its not Islam" position, is that Indonesians are simply lazy from the get go. Is that the point you are trying to make?
No. The problem is with the environment, the culture, and the interaction between the two in Indonesia. It's almost impossible to find an Indonesian in the U.S. that you can call "lazy" because the culture and the environment in the U.S. reward hard work.
Hombre de Maiz
02-12-10, 12:59
So the question becomes: what is the role of Islam in shaping and constraining the (comparatively negative) environment in Indonesia?
So the question becomes: what is the role of Islam in shaping and constraining the (comparatively negative) environment in Indonesia?
My opinion? None.
Hombre de Maiz
02-12-10, 13:57
Islam has no impact on the environment and culture of an 88% Muslim country. Probe more deeply and then get back to us.
Islam has no impact on the environment and culture of an 88% Muslim country. Probe more deeply and then get back to us.
This is where I know we differ.
Islam as a set of books and ideas has no impact "in shaping and constraining the (comparatively negative) environment in Indonesia". The people who live in Indonesia has the impact and they use Islam as an excuse to make the "comparatively negative environment" be acceptable. I say this because where in Islam does it say it's ok to be less productive than non muslims? Or to take long breaks? The people of Indonesia create those environments and they happen to practice Islam and therefore can use it as an excuse to maybe take longer breaks.
In my office, the muslims take 10-15 minute breaks for their prayers. And then they get right back to work. I have never said anything about how long they should/could take prayer breaks. The smokers take more and longer breaks here. If one person can be the exception to the rule, everyone else can do it too. And we have more than a few here.
Anyway, I'll stop here and just agree to disagree. I really hate where the other threads have gone, beyond reasonable, even if heated, discussion and exchanges of ideas. I'm going to try to not take this one that direction. I look forward to your replies.
Hombre de Maiz
02-12-10, 14:22
... I say this because where in Islam does it say it's ok to be less productive than non muslims? ....
One way that adherents of a set of belief try to shield it from criticism is to draw an neat and artifical boundary between the texts, tenets, injunctions of the belief from the practice thereof. What is under discussion here is not holy texts or theology, but rather the real, every-day practice (and impact) of those beliefs on this mundane world of the here and now. At the end of the day, the value of an idea and belief can only be tested in their real application and use.
But Islam is a tool, just like a knife, or a shovel. How one uses it, is irrelevant to the morality of the tool.
When you say "adherents of a set of belief" you're already talking about the people and how they choose to use Islam. Hide behind or be champions of.
Even two imams from neighboring mosques can be arguing about the tenets and meaning of texts of Islam. Who's right? Which one is true Islam? Islam is passive.
You're right that the value of an idea and belief can only be tested in the real world. But in this case, WHICH idea and WHICH belief? Whose idea and and whose belief?
Here's the difference between you and I, I think:
Each believer, even from the same mosque having the same imam can be two different kinds of workers. One can be a good dedicated worker who produces 8 hours of work per day even if it takes him 9-10 hours of being present, while the other produces only 6 hours of work per day and only present for 8 hours. Then how's Islam a contributing factor?
I believe each person can rise above any and all negative stereotype of the group they belong to, even religion. If they're a good worker, it doesn't matter what religion they are. Even if they're Indonesian muslim with 30 minute prayer breaks, etc, the good worker will make up for lost time. The bad worker won't and will say, "ooops I'm muslim I gotta do my prayers, doncha know."
waarmstrong
02-12-10, 15:01
You quoting me paraphrasing you: Indonesians are simply lazy from the get go. Is that the point you are trying to make?
Actually, I'll make that point. Plus Americans are lazy. And Mexicans. And Chinese. And Japanese. And many others.
Humans by nature are lazy. We'd spend the time to create the tools to make our lives easier rather than just do the work.
So I'm really saying some Indonesians are lazy. Some Americans are lazy. Some Chinese are lazy, etc etc etc.
Now I am really confused. Are you saying people work hard because they are lazy? Is not that a bit oxymoronic. It reminds me of phrases such as insane logic, living dead, jumbo shrimp. You get the idea. (Or maybe you don't.)
My view: people, or I should say, most people, regardless of national origin, are industrious and creative. My observations lead me to believe that most would prefer to be gainfully engaged as opposed to laying about.
Yep, I'm saying human nature is to be lazy. By that I mean we're industrious to a lazy end. We would engineer and design tools to make our lives easier. We would work and work hard at our occupation for those 2 weeks of vacations per year or the new TV we can watch while lounging on our LazyBoy.
What you said is also true because it's one step above our base instinct to lounge about. In order to be able to lounge about at the end of the day/weekend, we would work hard during the day.
I must confess, this comes from a simple joke that I found to be true (in my short time of experiencing life):
Engineers worked for years to create a TV remote control so he/she doesn't have to get up from their couch to change the channel.
waarmstrong
02-12-10, 17:48
Your logic suggests to me, Rabbit, that you have fallen pray to the dark side. In you examples of the quest for leisure it seems that your emphasis is placed on "leisure." I put the emphasis on "quest." The striving to excel, to improve, to find out, is how I see the essence of our nature. Must run. Time for my nap.
I didn't read all the posts in this thread .Just a suggestion,anyone who think Islam religious ritual is a barrier to productivity ,should bring this issue to MUI and propose to change workweek from mon-sun to sunday-thursday (friday will be weekend holiday)
Your logic suggests to me, Rabbit, that you have fallen pray to the dark side.
Heh heh perhaps. But eh, I don't care. And it's ok that you haven't joined the dark side yet ;-) But you will, oh you will. :-D
But seriously, you're right, I see people as a group to be driven by the will and the need for leisure. Individuals of course can rise above that and seek for the improvement of self, to focus on growth.
- "As a single atom man is an enigma: as a whole he is a mathematical problem." Winwood Reade -
To me the above reads that as a group, man's behavior is a lot more predictable than as an individual. A person can and do rise above the environment he's in and the expectations of his social colleagues.
Also, I'm perfectly ok and understand that my life's experiences shaped my views a certain way and yours shaped yours a different way. Now that I know the difference between you and I, I can appreciate your views and understand where you're coming from.
waarmstrong
02-12-10, 21:06
I didn't read all the posts in this thread .Just a suggestion,anyone who think Islam religious ritual is a barrier to productivity ,should bring this issue to MUI and propose to change workweek from mon-sun to sunday-thursday (friday will be weekend holiday)
Good suggestion, especially if you are planning to renovate and want your house burned down.
Good suggestion, especially if you are planning to renovate and want your house burned down.
Awesome, then we will have INdonesian KKK......not only PKK...
What hypothetical? Islam exists in the U.S. and it's not a significant productivity problem. It's not hypothetical, it's actual.
Islam exists in Indonesia. For it not to exist in Indonesia is hypothetical. So it is impossible to test your hypothesis.
No. The problem is with the environment, the culture, and the interaction between the two in Indonesia. It's almost impossible to find an Indonesian in the U.S. that you can call "lazy" because the culture and the environment in the U.S. reward hard work.
Your problem is that it is almost impossible to find an Indonesian Muslim in the US. With Muslims composing 0.8% of the US population (as opposed to 86%+ in Indonesia), your persistence in insisting that your experience in the US is relevant ... is futile.
Oh, BTW, it's gratifying that you've now corrected your definition of ad hominem and by implication apologized for your now baseless allegations. I accept.
It's gratifying that you now accept the accepted academic definition that an ad hominem:
a) requires a premise,
b) attacks the validity of the premise by
c) linking it to the speaker's character or other traits.
Now we're on a roll (1 for 1), let's take your incredible logic to the next level.
Your first reference to my "ad hominem" was in msg #61:
Which refers to my mention of "knee jerk etc" in msg #41:
My "knee jerk etc" refers to a response and not to you.
Does your logic still claim ad hominem? Or even a personal insult?
<You really should do your own homework.>
So you just found another angle of attack to deny your committing ad hominem. You claim that you're describing my "response". The last time I check an idea or a premise can't respond, a person can. You are attacking my person and linking it to the idea.
In any case I have learned that in both professional and academic setting that it's fine to discuss ideas and not agree, but it's not OK to get personal. I intend to maintain this standard, and there's nothing you do to me that can change it. You can call your actions ad hominem or personal attack, but in any case you choose to attack the person rather than the idea.
Islam exists in Indonesia. For it not to exist in Indonesia is hypothetical. So it is impossible to test your hypothesis.
But one day Indonesia can be as evolved as the U.S. so it's not impossible to see. You are arguing that experiments and tests can't represent the real world, which is entirely unscientific. It's like arguing that just because one drop of red dye mixed with one drop of blue dye yields two drops of purple dye, it doesn't mean 1000 liters of red dye mixed with 1000 liters of blue dye will yield 2000 liters of purple dye.
It's like refusing to accept that smoking is hazardous to human health because not everybody smokes, therefore the effect of cigarette on people who doesn't smoke is "hypothetical" until you make everybody smoke.
Your problem is that it is almost impossible to find an Indonesian Muslim in the US. With Muslims composing 0.8% of the US population (as opposed to 86%+ in Indonesia), your persistence in insisting that your experience in the US is relevant ... is futile.
You are saying that because the number is so small it's not reasonable to say that the vast majority of Indonesians in the U.S. are industrious? I don't have to know every single Indonesian in the U.S. to know that they're at least as diligent as any American because:
- If I have a good sample size (say 30 people), it's an acceptable approximation.
- Most Americans don't go out of their way to hire Indonesians. We got to prove that we are employable.
- American organizations simply do not tolerate lazyness, at least nowhere near the level in Indonesia. If an Indonesian is able to keep his job in the U.S. I'm 99.9% certain that he/she is at least as hard working as any American.
Oh, BTW, it's gratifying that you've now corrected your definition of ad hominem and by implication apologized for your now baseless allegations. I accept.
Oh, so you're declaring that lack of timely response on the forum is an apology? My life is bigger than this forum, and I will submit my response whenever I feel like it. My participation in this forum depends on my real life schedule, not the other way around.
So you just found another angle of attack to deny your committing ad hominem.
Yes, there are at least a couple of valid reasons why your persistent accusations of ad hominem are baseless.
Ironically, your persistent (groundless) accusations of ad hominem have become personal. I would imagine this is a result of your dearth of actual valid arguments.
You claim that you're describing my "response". The last time I check an idea or a premise can't respond, a person can. You are attacking my person and linking it to the idea.
I will also guarantee that if you ever kicked one of my dogs, you would get a response. However, for an idea or a premise, I believe a person is necessary. So where are you going with this? It sounds very much like you're saying that any comment against an idea, a premise or a response is a personal attack. Is that what you're claiming?
Edit: BTW, I did not merely "claim", I provided the actual proof - the original comment.
In any case I have learned that in both professional and academic setting that it's fine to discuss ideas and not agree, but it's not OK to get personal. I intend to maintain this standard, and there's nothing you do to me that can change it. You can call your actions ad hominem or personal attack, but in any case you choose to attack the person rather than the idea.
Ah another DDT. Now let's get this straight; it is YOU who is/are making the accusations of ad hominem / personal attack. This is covered under the definition of hypocracy.
Islam exists in Indonesia. For it not to exist in Indonesia is hypothetical. So it is impossible to test your hypothesis.
But one day Indonesia can be as evolved as the U.S. so it's not impossible to see.
What are you saying? That one day Islam will not exist in Indonesia? (Then on that day you can test your hypothesis.)
It's your convoluted incomprehensible statements and "logic" on top of Dishonest Debating Tactics that don't make you any friends. Everyone else has already long abandoned this thread. I would have too, just as I did with two other threads of your contributions.
This time I thought I would try and stick it out to try to disprove my signature.
Seems my signature is holding up better than yours.
Yes, there are at least a couple of valid reasons why your persistent accusations of ad hominem are baseless.
Ironically, your persistent (groundless) accusations of ad hominem have become personal. I would imagine this is a result of your dearth of actual valid arguments.
You are attacking me personally instead of the idea. Now by declaring it "baseless" you hope that people will eventually believe it. Just like your first attempt to declare that the premise doesn't exist.
Whether intentional or not, you made this personal to you when you leveled the judgment of "knee jerk, apologetic, and emotional". If you disagree with the idea, you can simply address it without resorting to "coloured" words.
I will also guarantee that if you ever kicked one of my dogs, you would get a response. However, for an idea or a premise, I believe a person is necessary. So where are you going with this? It sounds very much like you're saying that any comment against an idea, a premise or a response is a personal attack. Is that what you're claiming?
An idea doesn't knee jerk, apologize nor emote. The idea is that Islam does not significantly reduce productivity. You are trying to undermine it by saying I'm being knee jerk, apologetic, and emotional.
Edit: BTW, I did not merely "claim", I provided the actual proof - the original comment.
You're quoting the original comment and claiming that it supports your idea. It simply shows that you indeed committed ad hominem.
Ah another DDT. Now let's get this straight; it is YOU who is/are making the accusations of ad hominem / personal attack. This is covered under the definition of hypocracy.
I let you got away with personal attacks in the other thread in the hope that it was a fluke. Now that you're repeating it, I'm calling it out. Unlike you, I choose not to call you unflattering things, not because you don't deserve them but because I'm sticking with the facts. I am simply pointing out that you committed ad hominem and or personal attacks, which is strictly factual.
In this very same thread I have proven that I can discuss the issue without getting personal and without using "coloured" words. The same can't be said about you.
What are you saying? That one day Islam will not exist in Indonesia? (Then on that day you can test your hypothesis.)
It's your convoluted incomprehensible statements and "logic" on top of Dishonest Debating Tactics that don't make you any friends. Everyone else has already long abandoned this thread. I would have too, just as I did with two other threads of your contributions.
This time I thought I would try and stick it out to try to disprove my signature.
Seems my signature is holding up better than yours.
I specifically did not say that one day Islam won't exist in Indonesia. You declared that the only way to prove that Islam does not significantly affect productivity is by making it disappear from Indonesia. You are essentially claiming that if Islam disappears the productivity problem will disappear. I know it's wrong because there are productivity problems in countries where Islam is a small minority or is non existent.
Instead of addressing the points I raised, again, you are content in simply declaring them "convoluted" and hope it means something.
You are attacking me personally instead of the idea.
Not true. You have previously been asked to show examples, which you have so far failed to do.
Now by declaring it "baseless" you hope that people will eventually believe it. Just like your first attempt to declare that the premise doesn't exist.
Do you even know what it is? I'll tell you (what it is):
Yes, there are at least a couple of valid reasons why your persistent accusations of ad hominem are baseless.
First, I showed that your understanding of argumentum ad hominem was flawed. A flaw which you eventually corrected, but without admission of fault.
Second, I showed with examples (ie proof) that your application of argumentum ad hominem was flawed. You have yet to accept this, but are fighting it with repeated accusations of personal attacks which you have so far failed to show any examples of.
Your main contribution so far has been to continuously repeat baseless accusations.
Ironically, your persistent (groundless) accusations of ad hominem have become personal. I would imagine this is a result of your dearth of actual valid arguments.
Not true. You have previously been asked to show examples, which you have so far failed to do.
Do you even know what it is? I'll tell you (what it is):
First, I showed that your understanding of argumentum ad hominem was flawed. A flaw which you eventually corrected, but without admission of fault.
Second, I showed with examples (ie proof) that your application of argumentum ad hominem was flawed. You have yet to accept this, but are fighting it with repeated accusations of personal attacks which you have so far failed to show any examples of.
Your main contribution so far has been to continuously repeat baseless accusations.
You quoted yourself calling me "knee jerk, apologetic and emotional". That is ad hominem. Here are your attempts so far:
- you tried to deny it by declaring the premise doesn't exist. It doesn't work because others discussed the premise, so it can't be non-existent.
- you tried to deny it by declaring the premise is not valid. It doesn't work because by dictionary definition the premise doesn't have to be valid for the personal attack to be considered ad hominem. If this definition of yours is true, then people would simply declare their opponent's idea invalid and proceed with personal attacks. That is not the accepted understanding in professional and academic setting.
- you tried to deny it by quoting a source that says it's not ad hominem if it's not related to the argument; in that case it's simply personal abuse. That is actually worse than ad hominem.
- you tried to deny it by saying you're describing the response (and therefore the idea), not the person. It doesn't work because the idea that "Islam does not significantly decrease productivity" can't respond. You basically said that the idea is a response of me being knee jerk, apologetic, and emotional. These are traits of a person, not an Idea. I don't believe in this supposed loophole where people can declare an idea "moronic" and claim they never intended to call the speaker a moron. In any proper debate that excuse doesn't fly because such "coloured" words are unnecessary, as the facts alone are sufficient to support or refute the premise.
At this point you are content in declaring anything I say as baseless, despite ample examples otherwise. I recognize your right to say anything (including saying the sky is green) despite your not recognizing mine by telling me to st*u, you just can't expect me to accept your words.
You are attacking me personally instead of the idea.
Not true. You have previously been asked to show examples, which you have so far failed to do.
And your response:
You quoted yourself calling me "knee jerk, apologetic and emotional". That is ad hominem. Here are your attempts so far:
- you tried to deny it by declaring the premise doesn't exist. It doesn't work because others discussed the premise, so it can't be non-existent.
- you tried to deny it by declaring the premise is not valid. It doesn't work because by dictionary definition the premise doesn't have to be valid for the personal attack to be considered ad hominem. If this definition of yours is true, then people would simply declare their opponent's idea invalid and proceed with personal attacks. That is not the accepted understanding in professional and academic setting.
- you tried to deny it by quoting a source that says it's not ad hominem if it's not related to the argument; in that case it's simply personal abuse. That is actually worse than ad hominem.
- you tried to deny it by saying you're describing the response (and therefore the idea), not the person. It doesn't work because the idea that "Islam does not significantly decrease productivity" can't respond. You basically said that the idea is a response of me being knee jerk, apologetic, and emotional. These are traits of a person, not an Idea. I don't believe in this supposed loophole where people can declare an idea "moronic" and claim they never intended to call the speaker a moron. In any proper debate that excuse doesn't fly because such "coloured" words are unnecessary, as the facts alone are sufficient to support or refute the premise.
At this point you are content in declaring anything I say as baseless, despite ample examples otherwise. I recognize your right to say anything (including saying the sky is green) despite your not recognizing mine by telling me to st*u, you just can't expect me to accept your words.
Whoa, whoa, I just asked for an example or two and not a deluge of repeats.
As for your, "You quoted yourself calling me "knee jerk, apologetic and emotional". That is ad hominem."
Here is my full quote:
What are you saying?
a) US Muslims do NOT take time off during working hours to practice their religion? or
b) US Muslims taking time off to practice their religion do not negatively impact productivity?
In any event knee-jerk apologetic/emotional responses belong elsewhere.
Perhaps you can start a thread on "Religious spirituality does not fit into the economics equation."
<I won't be contributing.>
Where is the ad hominem? Where is the personal insult? You clearly still don't understand ad hominem.
Your contrived irrelevant responses are showing an air of desperation.
waarmstrong
04-12-10, 16:20
Dead horse, gentlemen.
And your response:
Whoa, whoa, I just asked for an example or two and not a deluge of repeats.
As for your, "You quoted yourself calling me "knee jerk, apologetic and emotional". That is ad hominem."
Here is my full quote:
Where is the ad hominem? Where is the personal insult? You clearly still don't understand ad hominem.
Your contrived irrelevant responses are showing an air of desperation.
Yet another judgment that I'm "desperate".
Do I really need to quote every single "coloured" words you tossed at me that is absolutely unnecessary in making or breaking your arguments? You are simply refusing to accept that you committed ad hominem regardless of anything. That's fine. Just don't expect me to accept your personal definition of the term.
Dead horse, gentlemen.
If you follow the thread, you'll see that I have dropped it at some point because I wasn't going to stoop to misquoting another person like Gratilla did. However, he got back on the case again.
You boys sure have a lot of gas and I commend that.
Unfortunately you are spinning your wheels here. Unless there is something new to reveal the point of continuing this thread is....?
Yet another judgment that I'm "desperate".
Spot on ... again.
Do I really need to quote every single "coloured" words you tossed at me that is absolutely unnecessary in making or breaking your arguments?
I just asked for an example or two
You are simply refusing to accept that you committed ad hominem regardless of anything.
Where is the ad hominem? Where is the personal insult? You clearly still don't understand ...
That's fine. Just don't expect me to accept your personal definition of the term.
Let's take a look at some more credible definitions:
- An ad hominem is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. [Wikipedia]
- Argumentum ad Hominem: the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. [http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html]
- An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.
Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html (http://plover.net/%7Ebonds/adhominem.html)
Priceless! :lol::lol::lol:
... I'm "desperate".
... I'm "desperate".
... I'm "desperate".
There you go. Gratilla knows I'm not going to stoop to misquoting like him, so he does it again. This is where I stop.
There you go. Gratilla knows I'm not going to stoop to misquoting like him, so he does it again. This is where I stop.
To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape. Sun Tzu - "The Art of Debate"
waarmstrong
05-12-10, 12:49
I understand that zombies are all the rage these days, but could we put a bullet in the head of this dead horse rather than propping it up to stumble around further?
Another he said-she said tit-for-tat contribution, I dare say, would unmask the contributor as boorishly juvenile.
yes it's poor.
poor manner , poor pride ,poor hypocrisy , poor education , poor communication , poor expectations.
And I'm saying this because I'm Indonesian . And I'm fed up by how society try to brainwash kids with empty pride and throw them out after that into harsh reality that indeed Indonesia is not anymore like what it is back in the Sriwijaya , or Soekarno's time.
My thread record....23 pages....awesome...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.