|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
On July 25 2011 02:20 nymfaw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 02:17 Grettin wrote: Aftonbladet is saying that the killer shot a police in the Island. Yes, a police man (or two) was shot and killed, but they were there working as unarmed guards, not wearing police uniforms.
Well, that was pretty obvious since he was captured without doing any resistance. But sad nevertheless.
|
On July 25 2011 02:17 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 00:36 vetinari wrote:On July 25 2011 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On July 25 2011 00:18 vetinari wrote:On July 24 2011 23:04 Ardhimas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:20 Psychobabas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:13 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem. You are a despicable person. The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do. Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is. "let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences". There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way. Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught. No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong. Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people? Yes, the eventual consequence of multiculturalism is the death of the culture that allowed multiculturalism in the first place. 1) Multiculturalism is only possible in free, democratic, peaceful societies. 2) In a democratic society, the culture with an absolute majority makes the rules. 3) Cultures exist that do not see multiculturalism as a good. 4) These cultures are generally patriarchal. 5) Patriarchal cultures have higher birthrates 6) Egalitarian/matriarchal cultures have low birthrates. 7) Therefore, the culture in 3 will eventually gain an absolute majority in terms of voter count. 8) The culture in 3 will be able to make the rules, due to 2 and 7 9) One of these rules will be the assimilition of all minority cultures into culture in 3, which includes culture in 1. 10) The dominant culture in 1 will no longer exist. 11) That was the culture which created a free, peaceful, democratic society. 12) There is a chance that the new dominant culture does not allow for a free, peaceful, democratic society. QED. Sorry but no. What you said is wrong because some you are assuming that everyone in the immigrant community is refuse to assimilate any value coming from the country they are living in, which is absolutly false. The main problem of multiculturalism is that it strenghten the communities, and because of that, people tend to assimilate themselves as "french canadian", "indian", "turk" despite all living in the same country (here canada for exemple) and having nothing to do with true "indians" or "turks" who actuallylive in Indiaand turkie. What makes you think I assume that? Thats a fucking stupid assumption to make, because its false. I have my own parents as proof of that... Night[6], I would appreciate if you could actually show me to be incorrect, instead of spouting a one liner. tyvm The demographic 'theory' (whole eurabia bullshit) you are referring to is actually completely untrue. Birthrates among immigrants adjust themselves to the mean within 2 generations, and at the moment birthrates for muslim minorities are below the national average, and even below the magic 2.1 that's needed to maintain the size of their population. Enjoy: http://dougsaunders.net/2008/09/eurabia-debunking-steyn-bawer-melanie-phillips-geert-wilders/
Odd, given that your own source states that TFR among muslim women in france is higher than non-muslim women in france.
That said, your source is more biased than fox news. The description of the catholic church as a terrorist organisation gives that away.
|
On July 25 2011 01:53 esperanto wrote: It worries me how ppl here also start to talk about "culture" as if it is some exclusive clear thing everyone is either in or an outsider. I didnt wanted to get into this discussion, especially cause its highly disrespecfull to all the victimes to actually let the killer get a platform for his ideas out of his horrible event.
But since there is too much shit spreading out on some of the comments here, I wanna give you an answer. For your ideas of "clash of cultures": We live in a multi-culti society all along. And even without any influence from cultures of diffrent regions (muslims cultures...) we have a multi-culti society. Atheists and christians have diffrences in their cultures, conservatives and liberals, ppl from the south part of a country and ppl from north, even poor ppl and rich ppl. Sometimes thess diffrences are even bigger than diffrences to some (you might call them) outisde cultures. For example over 35% of the german population are atheists. For muslims, there isn't any single cultural identification-point with some exceptions as you might want to see it(you would call them the "few moderate muslims") there is actually the same diversity inside as everywhere else. I personally as an atheist would say that I share more cultural aspects with some muslim (lets call them sub-culture circles) than with some "traditional christian european" cultural circles.
So whats the solution to your thoughts. For a real mono-cultural society you actually would have to exclude (if you are extreme, kill) the 80% other ppl that dont fit your view. The killer from oslo came to a point where he not only wanted to live without muslims, but also without ppl with diffrent political views.
Please ask yourself the following questions: What is the countrys identity? Who does fit in, who doesnt? Is it only traditional patriotic natives. Will someone not fit in out of his behavior, his herritage, his views on politics, or cause he enjoys esports more than football? Or is it a "just" matter of race again?
I show you my solution: You cant prevent a multi-cultural society, simply the fact that ppl can chose diffrent livestyles or are influences by the connections they have to all over the world, will never get you a mono-cultural society. But what you can do is the following: You can creat a common base all those cultures have to share and hold on to. The minimum part of this cultural base is the law, human-rights.... The next step for this common base is respect/ tolerance and the believe in democracy... All the cultures that come here or are here will have to life after this basic common principles.
Well put. I am still too flustered to write a big coherent post myself so I will just echo yours instead.
|
On July 25 2011 00:36 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On July 25 2011 00:18 vetinari wrote:On July 24 2011 23:04 Ardhimas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:20 Psychobabas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:13 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem. You are a despicable person. The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do. Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is. "let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences". There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way. Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught. No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong. Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people? Yes, the eventual consequence of multiculturalism is the death of the culture that allowed multiculturalism in the first place. 1) Multiculturalism is only possible in free, democratic, peaceful societies. 2) In a democratic society, the culture with an absolute majority makes the rules. 3) Cultures exist that do not see multiculturalism as a good. 4) These cultures are generally patriarchal. 5) Patriarchal cultures have higher birthrates 6) Egalitarian/matriarchal cultures have low birthrates. 7) Therefore, the culture in 3 will eventually gain an absolute majority in terms of voter count. 8) The culture in 3 will be able to make the rules, due to 2 and 7 9) One of these rules will be the assimilition of all minority cultures into culture in 3, which includes culture in 1. 10) The dominant culture in 1 will no longer exist. 11) That was the culture which created a free, peaceful, democratic society. 12) There is a chance that the new dominant culture does not allow for a free, peaceful, democratic society. QED. Sorry but no. What you said is wrong because some you are assuming that everyone in the immigrant community is going to refuse to assimilate any value coming from the country they are living in, which is absolutly false. The main problem of multiculturalism is that it strenghten the communities, and because of that, people tend to assimilate themselves as "french canadian", "indian", "turk" despite all living in the same country (here canada for exemple) and having nothing to do with true "indians" or "turks" who actuallylive in Indiaand turkie. What makes you think I assume that? Thats a fucking stupid assumption to make, because its false. I have my own parents as proof of that... Night[6], I would appreciate if you could actually show me to be incorrect, instead of spouting a one liner. tyvm Here
5) Patriarchal cultures have higher birthrates
6) Egalitarian/matriarchal cultures have low birthrates.
7) Therefore, the culture in 3 will eventually gain an absolute majority in terms of voter count.
You assume that, in the long run (I supose many generation ?), the "patriarchal" culture voter count will rise above the "egalitarian / matriarchal" voter count because of their birth rate (7 because of 6+5). From this perspective, every voter who are born in the democratic society but also from the immigrant patriarchal culture will eventually vote for the same party or the same idea, which is cultural domination over the culture 1 (your point 8 and after).
Here is how it will most likely happen : in the long run (many generation), child coming from culture 3 will actually reject a certain number of idea or tradition coming from their patriarchal communities because of the "matriarchal" (culture 1) environment they live in. Culture 3 and culture 1 will merge and the cultural factor for voting will become less and less important. Eventually, everybody will rise together against culture 4, new immigrants ! And the shit will repeat itself.
|
On July 25 2011 02:17 Grettin wrote: Aftonbladet is saying that the killer shot a police in the Island. Yes, there was an unarmed police man on "voluntary overtime" as a guard on the island.
|
On July 25 2011 00:28 Fuckyeah wrote: Religion is the abomination that is killing. It may have helped people in the past, but in today's world it's just an abomination doing the opposite of what it was intended to do; bringing peace.
I used to think like that as a highly secular person, I don't believe this anymore.
It's indoctrination that's killing. Religious indoctrination != Religion
The individual in this case was higly indoctrinated in a political ideology, religion was not at fault here.
|
On July 25 2011 02:24 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 02:17 Derez wrote:On July 25 2011 00:36 vetinari wrote:On July 25 2011 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On July 25 2011 00:18 vetinari wrote:On July 24 2011 23:04 Ardhimas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:20 Psychobabas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:13 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem. You are a despicable person. The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do. Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is. "let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences". There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way. Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught. No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong. Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people? Yes, the eventual consequence of multiculturalism is the death of the culture that allowed multiculturalism in the first place. 1) Multiculturalism is only possible in free, democratic, peaceful societies. 2) In a democratic society, the culture with an absolute majority makes the rules. 3) Cultures exist that do not see multiculturalism as a good. 4) These cultures are generally patriarchal. 5) Patriarchal cultures have higher birthrates 6) Egalitarian/matriarchal cultures have low birthrates. 7) Therefore, the culture in 3 will eventually gain an absolute majority in terms of voter count. 8) The culture in 3 will be able to make the rules, due to 2 and 7 9) One of these rules will be the assimilition of all minority cultures into culture in 3, which includes culture in 1. 10) The dominant culture in 1 will no longer exist. 11) That was the culture which created a free, peaceful, democratic society. 12) There is a chance that the new dominant culture does not allow for a free, peaceful, democratic society. QED. Sorry but no. What you said is wrong because some you are assuming that everyone in the immigrant community is refuse to assimilate any value coming from the country they are living in, which is absolutly false. The main problem of multiculturalism is that it strenghten the communities, and because of that, people tend to assimilate themselves as "french canadian", "indian", "turk" despite all living in the same country (here canada for exemple) and having nothing to do with true "indians" or "turks" who actuallylive in Indiaand turkie. What makes you think I assume that? Thats a fucking stupid assumption to make, because its false. I have my own parents as proof of that... Night[6], I would appreciate if you could actually show me to be incorrect, instead of spouting a one liner. tyvm The demographic 'theory' (whole eurabia bullshit) you are referring to is actually completely untrue. Birthrates among immigrants adjust themselves to the mean within 2 generations, and at the moment birthrates for muslim minorities are below the national average, and even below the magic 2.1 that's needed to maintain the size of their population. Enjoy: http://dougsaunders.net/2008/09/eurabia-debunking-steyn-bawer-melanie-phillips-geert-wilders/ Odd, given that your own source states that TFR among muslim women in france is higher than non-muslim women in france. That said, your source is more biased than fox news. The description of the catholic church as a terrorist organisation gives that away.
So if birthrates if France stay consistent like they are at the moment there will be a muslim majority by the year 2300 or something. Well done picking the single deviant case and ignoring every other one.
Also, I couldn't give a shit how the author of the article presents it. His sources are scientific, which is more that can be said for the pseudo-science employed by the defenders of this eurabia madness, and there's no need to be nice to people that spread blatant lies in order to spread fears about islam. There is no such thing as a 'cultural war', except for the one that extremists on both sides are creating for their own purposes. People like Wilders (and equivalents in other countries) are doing the exact same thing they accuse muslims of doing: Maintaining their interpretation of 'identity' at the cost of everyone else's.
I'm a white, 'native', atheist dutchman, yet my sense of identity has nothing to do with what the far-right is trying to make it out to be. For me, there is no such thing as a 'dutchman', a 'norwegian', you name it. The beauty of the system we live in is that you can take up any identity you want without the state dictating it, and being dutch or european is only a very small part of that for me.
That said, I don't want to respond to any of this again. Doing it earlier was a mistake already, and I should have just ignored you. This is not the place for it.
|
Being from Norway and living only an hour from Oslo as well as Utøya, I am completely shaken. It's a terrible tragedy and it will be remembered forever. We appriciate the support from nations around the world.
|
so many fucking idiots in here thinking this tragedy is a prelude or introduction to a discussion on whether a multicultural society is good or bad thing. If u feel like that, at least give it some time and have some god damn class! Tards....
User was warned for this post
|
On July 25 2011 02:46 Vortigan wrote: so many fucking idiots in here thinking this tragedy is a prelude or introduction to a discussion on whether a multicultural society is good or bad thing. If u feel like that, at least give it some time and have some god damn class! Tards....
Because calling people fucking idiots and tards is having class... If you are so bothered about it you should at least tell people in a mannered way
|
Trucane, on this day I would hope you would understand why someone would be less mannered about such a thing. Now, can some of you people please (!) have enough respect to stop this discussion for just a little bit.
|
On July 25 2011 02:50 trucane wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 02:46 Vortigan wrote: so many fucking idiots in here thinking this tragedy is a prelude or introduction to a discussion on whether a multicultural society is good or bad thing. If u feel like that, at least give it some time and have some god damn class! Tards.... Because calling people fucking idiots and tards is having class... If you are so bothered about it you should at least tell people in a mannered way
this was just an emotional outburst... but glad this doesn't bother u enough to bm. good for you.
|
He was an introverted maniac filled with hatred though. He has a lot of traits that fit the profile of your run-of-the-mill spreekiller. No he wasn't. Read the end of the manifesto, his diary especially, and you'll see.
|
The thing is and that I dont get: The most logical conclusion, that he would get into jail and his individual life would just break apart and suck from now on for the future of his life on earth.. Thats what he didnt think about?
I mean we often blame egoism on so much in society. If this guy was egoistic enough he would have never done this. He did this for an ''idea'' and not himself.
|
from reading the diary, the only sign of him being a maniac was the fact that he played WoW
User was warned for this post
|
Jesus Christ. After basicly staying awake 24/7 to feed infos I just woke up from sleeping 16 hours straight. :X
I already got a few great responses from people way more intellectual than me when it comes to the topics behind the whole situation, which basicly put him also into the "Highly intelligent, insane and therefore immensly dangerous" spot.
A few cornerstones for possible discussion:
-Such a deed is never isolated. It is highly unlikely that he clicked randomly ten years ago and then decided to do all this along the way. Planning, documenting and executing a thing like this should be seen as a symptom, not a cause. - However twisted the "solution" became in his head, it is crucially important to correctly identify the actual "problem" that, if solved, will make his whole chaing of thought fail and therefore stop anyone who could think that his way is the correct way to approach these things.
To make the above things possible it is important that people who want to discuss certain points that could be part of his agenda (e.g. immigration-related issues, the isolation of immigrated people, education, integration etc.) wont be stigmatized. - (e.g. in germany it's quite common that everyone who raises any issue about jews is instantly labelled "omg nazi!" - no matter his intention or point)
Not caring about the things he brought up or straight up ignoring them (because "talking about it now would be what he intended in the first place") would be the worst thing any sane person could do. Not speaking about these issues is just the same as collaborating with radical people.
Why? Because the people who actually sympathize with his ideologies and actions will talk and act on it. It's very, very important that the people who condamn his actions and ideologies do the same.
-In the aftermath of this mess it is crucial to fight any type of bullshitting from the media and radical movements by education and information. Inform yourself and inform others if you spot any type of misinformation. Some national medias already run straight (probably because it will yield the highest profit) all over his Facebook information that he deliberately put there so they will use it. (e.g. the german media is already all over WoW and "killer games" being the actual cause for someone to snap like this.)
Edit: Not sure if I should put some of those things in my post on page #1 since it's kinda a personal commentary, though a lot of people right now misfocus badly right now imho. Issues about his penalty, legal issues in general and the how & why are not important compared to correctly dealing with the reactions by the media, the public and your closest social environment.
|
Has it been confirmed that this Anders person is actually behind all of this?
|
-In the aftermath of this mess it is crucial to fight any type of bullshitting from the media and radical movements by education and information. Inform yourself and inform others if you spot any type of misinformation. Some national medias already run straight (probably because it will yield the highest profit) all over his Facebook information that he deliberately put there so they will use it. (e.g. the german media is already all over WoW and "killer games" being the actual cause for someone to snap like this.) Do you have any links for 'news' like this?
Oh, and thanks for the great post
|
On July 25 2011 03:24 Wolf wrote: Has it been confirmed that this Anders person is actually behind all of this?
There aren't any other suspects at the moment, he was caught on the scene, he's admitted it, and his journal does describe his preparations for the attack and that doesn't refer to any other accomplice.
There were some witness reports of another gunman, so it is a possibily, but it's also possible that the witnesses were confused in the panic, and mistook something or someone else for the second shooter.
|
On July 25 2011 03:29 Aim Here wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 03:24 Wolf wrote: Has it been confirmed that this Anders person is actually behind all of this? There aren't any other suspects at the moment, he was caught on the scene, he's admitted it, and his journal does describe his preparations for the attack and that doesn't refer to any other accomplice. There were some witness reports of another gunman, so it is a possibily, but it's also possible that the witnesses were confused in the panic, and mistook something or someone else for the second shooter.
Ah, okay. I hadn't heard that he's admitted to it. Thanks for the update.
|
|
|
|