|
On August 13 2012 09:27 Elsid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 09:22 Slakter wrote:On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote: You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import) Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative. I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect. Marx died in like 1884 did he not and the russian revolution was in 1917, how could he have possibly travelled through the soviet union? :o
Well I always thought he was ahead of his time...
|
On August 13 2012 09:29 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 09:27 Elsid wrote:On August 13 2012 09:22 Slakter wrote:On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote: You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import) Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative. I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect. Marx died in like 1884 did he not and the russian revolution was in 1917, how could he have possibly travelled through the soviet union? :o Well I always thought he was ahead of his time...
haha!
|
On August 13 2012 09:29 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 09:27 Elsid wrote:On August 13 2012 09:22 Slakter wrote:On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote: You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import) Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative. I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect. Marx died in like 1884 did he not and the russian revolution was in 1917, how could he have possibly travelled through the soviet union? :o Well I always thought he was ahead of his time... godlike ;D
|
On August 11 2012 23:31 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 23:22 zalz wrote:On August 11 2012 23:09 reincremate wrote:On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
Not all cultures are equal. It works pretty well in Canada (contrary to what white nationalists argue). Here's some stuff explaining why: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/multi-state.pdfhttp://post.queensu.ca/~bantingk/Canadian_Multiculturalism.pdfHow well people of different groups function relative to other groups is dependent on the social and economic conditions such as ability to find jobs rather than some groups of people just having better belief and value systems that others. Religious and political extremism emerge from tangible problems like not being able to make ends meet while living in a hostile environment. Even in a country like Canada (or any other country with a large immigrant population) where recognition of foreign credentials is an issue (let immigrants in based on credentials, don't give immigrants jobs they're qualified for), muliticulturalism has not been an problem and policies favouring multiculturalism have proven to work. Canada isn't Europe. Your position on the world actually influences the kind of refugees you are likely to pick up. Canada is impossible to reach for economical refugees. Meanwhile, every rich family that doesn't like the political waves in their respective country can book a ticket to Canada or America, depending on their preference. The economical refugees come for the money, the political refugees come for the culture. Virutally all immigrants, illegal immigrants and arguably most refugees comes for the money. Immigrants vastly outnumber the other two groups. It's just that the money is more accessible here because we have a system that creates more opportunities. People don't just go "I hate this country, I'm going to Canada". I've never met an immigrant who did not have national/ethnic/religious pride or identity that they brought from their home country with them, but of course that's just anecdotal evidence. But if you read the links or other studies about the sociology of Canada, you'll find that people here identify both as Canadians and as whatever else they want to identify with. For the most part it's simply the fact that Canada is just less xenophobic and has a higher demand for skilled labour.
actually. canada is a bad place for refugees. do not come to canada if you are a refugee ;( this talk/lecture i went to also had refugees / people who were refugees come to the talk and then talk about their experiences and yeah... canada... not so good after all T_T;;
source: http://www.sfu.ca/tlcvan/clients/sfu_woodwards/2012-05-30_Woodwards_Right_to_Refuge_9316/
|
On August 13 2012 15:37 jodogohoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 23:31 reincremate wrote:On August 11 2012 23:22 zalz wrote:On August 11 2012 23:09 reincremate wrote:On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
Not all cultures are equal. It works pretty well in Canada (contrary to what white nationalists argue). Here's some stuff explaining why: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/multi-state.pdfhttp://post.queensu.ca/~bantingk/Canadian_Multiculturalism.pdfHow well people of different groups function relative to other groups is dependent on the social and economic conditions such as ability to find jobs rather than some groups of people just having better belief and value systems that others. Religious and political extremism emerge from tangible problems like not being able to make ends meet while living in a hostile environment. Even in a country like Canada (or any other country with a large immigrant population) where recognition of foreign credentials is an issue (let immigrants in based on credentials, don't give immigrants jobs they're qualified for), muliticulturalism has not been an problem and policies favouring multiculturalism have proven to work. Canada isn't Europe. Your position on the world actually influences the kind of refugees you are likely to pick up. Canada is impossible to reach for economical refugees. Meanwhile, every rich family that doesn't like the political waves in their respective country can book a ticket to Canada or America, depending on their preference. The economical refugees come for the money, the political refugees come for the culture. Virutally all immigrants, illegal immigrants and arguably most refugees comes for the money. Immigrants vastly outnumber the other two groups. It's just that the money is more accessible here because we have a system that creates more opportunities. People don't just go "I hate this country, I'm going to Canada". I've never met an immigrant who did not have national/ethnic/religious pride or identity that they brought from their home country with them, but of course that's just anecdotal evidence. But if you read the links or other studies about the sociology of Canada, you'll find that people here identify both as Canadians and as whatever else they want to identify with. For the most part it's simply the fact that Canada is just less xenophobic and has a higher demand for skilled labour. actually. canada is a bad place for refugees. do not come to canada if you are a refugee ;( this talk/lecture i went to also had refugees / people who were refugees come to the talk and then talk about their experiences and yeah... canada... not so good after all T_T;; source: http://www.sfu.ca/tlcvan/clients/sfu_woodwards/2012-05-30_Woodwards_Right_to_Refuge_9316/
So I can't run away to Canada once the crazy conservatives take over America?
Sad...
|
The Bible and the Quran are not the same.
The Bible is divinely inspired, the Quran is the literal word of god.
Christians derive the validity of their faith from the miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims literally believe that their religion's miracle is the Quran, a book they believe is not only flawless, but contains hidden wisdom and revelations in science and the future.
You may consider it a small difference, but the results are massive.
Anyone who doubts the Quran is simply not a muslim, because he goes against the literal word of god. Meanwhile, Christians can claim the Bible is divine, but they also acknowledge that it can contain errors.
The result is that Christians are permitted to doubt and discard more or less anything they want. Who is to say what is divine and what is a translation error?
Meanwhile, muslims are expected to accept everything, because the entire book is the word of god and god is without flaw.
This however has not kept the Muslim faith singular in outlook.
The truth that not many people realize, is that the Quran is actually not that important in Islam. Now when I say this, I don't mean that it isn't the most divine text in their faith, because it is, but in terms of practical use, it doesn't do much.
The Hadiths, collections of the life of the prophet, are far more important for day-to-day muslim life. The Quran mostly serves as the divine foundation, whilst the Hadiths are the house build upon the foundation.
The problem with that is that every reading of Islam is considered, by the respective sect, the absolute and unalterable truth, because they all derive their legitimacy from a text that they belief has no flaw.
So no, the Quran and the Bible should not be considered similar, even though the Quran is largely a plagiarism from the new testament, just as the new testament is a plagiarism of the old testament.
(For the record, the Quran is anything but flawless, but it isn't a debate you should ever even try to have because the texts can be twisted to such a degree that even the parts that support a geo-centric universe are eventually considered "correct in a way.") Good post, many people seem to forget that the Quran is the literal word of God which the Bible is NOT. Can you doubt the words of God?
|
On August 14 2012 01:22 InDaHouse wrote:Show nested quote +The Bible and the Quran are not the same.
The Bible is divinely inspired, the Quran is the literal word of god.
Christians derive the validity of their faith from the miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims literally believe that their religion's miracle is the Quran, a book they believe is not only flawless, but contains hidden wisdom and revelations in science and the future.
You may consider it a small difference, but the results are massive.
Anyone who doubts the Quran is simply not a muslim, because he goes against the literal word of god. Meanwhile, Christians can claim the Bible is divine, but they also acknowledge that it can contain errors.
The result is that Christians are permitted to doubt and discard more or less anything they want. Who is to say what is divine and what is a translation error?
Meanwhile, muslims are expected to accept everything, because the entire book is the word of god and god is without flaw.
This however has not kept the Muslim faith singular in outlook.
The truth that not many people realize, is that the Quran is actually not that important in Islam. Now when I say this, I don't mean that it isn't the most divine text in their faith, because it is, but in terms of practical use, it doesn't do much.
The Hadiths, collections of the life of the prophet, are far more important for day-to-day muslim life. The Quran mostly serves as the divine foundation, whilst the Hadiths are the house build upon the foundation.
The problem with that is that every reading of Islam is considered, by the respective sect, the absolute and unalterable truth, because they all derive their legitimacy from a text that they belief has no flaw.
So no, the Quran and the Bible should not be considered similar, even though the Quran is largely a plagiarism from the new testament, just as the new testament is a plagiarism of the old testament.
(For the record, the Quran is anything but flawless, but it isn't a debate you should ever even try to have because the texts can be twisted to such a degree that even the parts that support a geo-centric universe are eventually considered "correct in a way.") Good post, many people seem to forget that the Quran is the literal word of God which the Bible is NOT. Can you doubt the words of God?
Well you can still read it differently. I recall reading in school that for instance a sentence such as "thieves right hand should be cut off" could be read as "we must teach criminals what's right, and thus separating the thief from the man" and such.
Essentially the bible and the Quran are treated the same. The difference is that a lot of Arab countries are more hard core in their religion than the west currently is. It's kind of like going back in time a couple of hundred years, or perhaps visiting one of those christian fundamentalists in southern USA- The bible could be questioned at the same point in time when the religion itself could be questioned. I don't think that the Spanish inquisition for instance would've given two fucks about you thinking that the translation was off if you would've gone around talking about the bible being wrong somewhere.
Afaik it's also fairly common to just be atheist. I've heard that a huge part of Iran's population are atheists for instance. I don't have any facts to back that up, it's just something that I've heard mentioned a lot. I think a fitting analogy would be for a relatively liberal country to have the pope as their leader.
|
I don't know about Iran, but I know that in Iraq it is not common to be an atheist. I was working with a guy who had been an outspoken atheist in Iraq, and he had to seek asylum in the states because it was dangerous for him to be there. (I was helping him translate a book he had written about his conversion from Islam to atheism into English.)
He said, "I did not like Saddam, but at least he was secular." I got the strong impression that he was unhappy with the wave of fundamentalism that was happening in the country after the fall of that regime.
Iran is probably different though.
|
On August 11 2012 22:16 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 19:49 Littlemuff wrote: When asian immigrants first came to UK. they were beaten, chased down roads, all sorts. Happened to me as a tourist to New Zealand last month. 2 cars full of teenagers chased me and my family until we ran to the main road. Makes me glad to live in California. In a suburb dominated by middle class Asians. People wouldn't even think about pulling that kind of shit.
I would like to apologise on behalf of New Zealand for that. That's actually pretty unusual to have happen. Teenagers can be stupid, but that is no excuses for their behaviour.
|
On August 13 2012 15:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 15:37 jodogohoo wrote:On August 11 2012 23:31 reincremate wrote:On August 11 2012 23:22 zalz wrote:On August 11 2012 23:09 reincremate wrote:On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
Not all cultures are equal. It works pretty well in Canada (contrary to what white nationalists argue). Here's some stuff explaining why: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/multi-state.pdfhttp://post.queensu.ca/~bantingk/Canadian_Multiculturalism.pdfHow well people of different groups function relative to other groups is dependent on the social and economic conditions such as ability to find jobs rather than some groups of people just having better belief and value systems that others. Religious and political extremism emerge from tangible problems like not being able to make ends meet while living in a hostile environment. Even in a country like Canada (or any other country with a large immigrant population) where recognition of foreign credentials is an issue (let immigrants in based on credentials, don't give immigrants jobs they're qualified for), muliticulturalism has not been an problem and policies favouring multiculturalism have proven to work. Canada isn't Europe. Your position on the world actually influences the kind of refugees you are likely to pick up. Canada is impossible to reach for economical refugees. Meanwhile, every rich family that doesn't like the political waves in their respective country can book a ticket to Canada or America, depending on their preference. The economical refugees come for the money, the political refugees come for the culture. Virutally all immigrants, illegal immigrants and arguably most refugees comes for the money. Immigrants vastly outnumber the other two groups. It's just that the money is more accessible here because we have a system that creates more opportunities. People don't just go "I hate this country, I'm going to Canada". I've never met an immigrant who did not have national/ethnic/religious pride or identity that they brought from their home country with them, but of course that's just anecdotal evidence. But if you read the links or other studies about the sociology of Canada, you'll find that people here identify both as Canadians and as whatever else they want to identify with. For the most part it's simply the fact that Canada is just less xenophobic and has a higher demand for skilled labour. actually. canada is a bad place for refugees. do not come to canada if you are a refugee ;( this talk/lecture i went to also had refugees / people who were refugees come to the talk and then talk about their experiences and yeah... canada... not so good after all T_T;; source: http://www.sfu.ca/tlcvan/clients/sfu_woodwards/2012-05-30_Woodwards_Right_to_Refuge_9316/ So I can't run away to Canada once the crazy conservatives take over America? Sad... you probably want to escape to finland, why? cause their education program is godlike. in 50 years, it will be a super nation of utopian awesomeness.
source: my imagination, and wikipedia... and some background in the study of education... / sociology
|
Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
|
TBH this boils back a lot to exactly *what ideas* hold all of humanity together. What thoughts can we all share, on a guaranteed basis?
|
Even in Germany, where there are a lot of Turkish immigrants (they are citizens of Germany and a few are Turkish citizens), there is sometimes quite a bit of ethnic tension here and there. There are now parliamentarians within the German government who have Turkish ancestry.
Turks now have a voice in German politics and mostly vote for the Social Democratic Party.
Believe or not, Germans and Turks get along pretty well minus a few ethnic violence incidents back in the 1990s. However a lot of conservative Germans are still against granting Turks citizenship. I am not really against it but I would be more careful as to who Germany should grant citizenship to.
|
On August 14 2012 19:03 Kavallerie wrote: Even in Germany, where there are a lot of Turkish immigrants (they are citizens of Germany or at least permanent residents), there is sometimes quite a bit of ethnic tension here and there. There are now parliamentarians within the German government who have Turkish ancestry.
Turks now have a voice in German politics and mostly vote for the Social Democratic Party.
Believe or not, Turks and Germans get along pretty well minus a few ethnic violence incidents back in the 1990s. However a lot of conservative Germans are still against granting Turks citizenship. I am not really against it but I would be more careful as to who Germany should grant citizenship to.
See, that's because most Turkish immigrants and average Germans actually share quite a bit in common--namely, a focus on honest work, clean living, and a desire for self-improvement. Countries where the immigrant population doesn't share that sentiment have much more problems, although such examples are *extremely* rare.
|
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
|
On August 14 2012 19:03 Kavallerie wrote: Even in Germany, where there are a lot of Turkish immigrants (they are citizens of Germany and a few are Turkish citizens), there is sometimes quite a bit of ethnic tension here and there. There are now parliamentarians within the German government who have Turkish ancestry.
Turks now have a voice in German politics and mostly vote for the Social Democratic Party.
Believe or not, Germans and Turks get along pretty well minus a few ethnic violence incidents back in the 1990s. However a lot of conservative Germans are still against granting Turks citizenship. I am not really against it but I would be more careful as to who Germany should grant citizenship to. Interesting , actually i am subscribed to Russia Today on youtube and they made a video report today saying that many Turks are leaving Europe now because of economic issues there.They showed graphic stating economic growth in Turkey last year was 7.5% whereas in Europe is was i think 1.6%.We are not just talking recent immigrants either but people hwo were born in Europe with Turkish ancestry.
This also fits in with an article i read a month or so ago showing many Mexican illegal immigrants to the US are also moving back to Mexico due to downturn in the economy particularly construction sectors in the US so yes it is mostly economic.
In short when the governments of western nations keep cutting back welfare payments and the economies continue declining many of these foreigners will go home.Do not forget also that bad economic conditions leads to rise in nationalism.
|
On August 14 2012 20:03 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations. Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally. And yet it excists in every part of the world. Everyone is prejudiced to some extent anyway it's very normal for people to already judge someone by just looking at them and not knowing them at all.
|
On August 14 2012 20:03 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations. Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
Racism comes naturally, whether you would like to believe it or not. Many people are "racist" without even recognizing themselves as racists. That's why I don't like how the word "racist" is used in its current meaning as depicted by the media.
If you define yourself as part of the European or Caucasian race, there you go, you believe that a division in race exists in the world.
Racism and prejudice based on racism are two entirely different things. Discriminating someone based on race, now that is against the law and should not come naturally. However it does for some people.
|
Funny how there's never a mention of a south-east asian immigrant in this thread, while there are a ton of them in Europe, something to realize about them is that their social architecture is a lot more developed, their culture given time to mature, in effect their morals are better developed, they have a harder working mentality and are for all intents and purposes much closer to Europeans (even a communist chinese) then someone from the middle east.
We always consider cultures to be beautiful things that need to be nurtured or developed, this is complete bullshit ofcourse, some cultures should be discarded in favor of whatever the regional variety is, specifcally the European muslims, when considering a Muslim culture you have to realize that in 600-800 AD most muslim countries where conquered and forcibly made to accept Islam and arab culture, especially the second one is relevant as arab culture is nomadic, whereas practically all of the conquered where sedentary argrarically based kingdoms, due to this many prosperous north african countries fell into obscurity as nomads can not support a city and it would take until they reimbraced a sedentary non arabic, and in essence, non Islamic culture until they became actual powers again (the Moors or secular Turks for instance).
What this also means is that practically all muslim cultures are younger then 1400 years, a paltry sum compared to the amount of time Chinese or French had and which also easily explains why Islam seems so ass backwards when it comes to morals and freedom, it hasn't been given the time required yet to form a functional culture compared to the ones we are more familiar with.
|
On August 14 2012 19:03 Kavallerie wrote: Even in Germany, where there are a lot of Turkish immigrants (they are citizens of Germany and a few are Turkish citizens), there is sometimes quite a bit of ethnic tension here and there. There are now parliamentarians within the German government who have Turkish ancestry.
Turks now have a voice in German politics and mostly vote for the Social Democratic Party.
Believe or not, Germans and Turks get along pretty well minus a few ethnic violence incidents back in the 1990s. However a lot of conservative Germans are still against granting Turks citizenship. I am not really against it but I would be more careful as to who Germany should grant citizenship to.
It's true that normally Germans and Turks get along but there are still problems associated mainly with the Turkish population in Germany. With them being the largest foreign group in Germany, there are a lot of areas where they have segregated from the local society to such an extent that they interact only with eachother and there is the strange phenomenom of third generation Turks who cannot speak any German. Just take a look at Berlin Neu-Köln, Köln Ehrenfeld/Mülheim, and some parts of the Ruhr Gebiet. A lot of people with Turkish ancestry have integrated really well in society but there is still a significant part that unfortunately is not. That's one of the reasons why there was such an uproar when Erdogan spoke in front of 20k Turks in Cologne and told them that the most important thing for them is to keep their Turkish culture and shouldn't adopt Germany's one...
On August 14 2012 20:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 19:03 Kavallerie wrote: Even in Germany, where there are a lot of Turkish immigrants (they are citizens of Germany and a few are Turkish citizens), there is sometimes quite a bit of ethnic tension here and there. There are now parliamentarians within the German government who have Turkish ancestry.
Turks now have a voice in German politics and mostly vote for the Social Democratic Party.
Believe or not, Germans and Turks get along pretty well minus a few ethnic violence incidents back in the 1990s. However a lot of conservative Germans are still against granting Turks citizenship. I am not really against it but I would be more careful as to who Germany should grant citizenship to. Interesting , actually i am subscribed to Russia Today on youtube and they made a video report today saying that many Turks are leaving Europe now because of economic issues there.They showed graphic stating economic growth in Turkey last year was 7.5% whereas in Europe is was i think 1.6%.We are not just talking recent immigrants either but people hwo were born in Europe with Turkish ancestry. This also fits in with an article i read a month or so ago showing many Mexican illegal immigrants to the US are also moving back to Mexico due to downturn in the economy particularly construction sectors in the US so yes it is mostly economic. In short when the governments of western nations keep cutting back welfare payments and the economies continue declining many of these foreigners will go home.Do not forget also that bad economic conditions leads to rise in nationalism.
Wages for unskilled and even skilled labor in Turkey are still lower than welfare checks in Germany, nevermind actual wages. The same applies to other European countries with a large Turkish population. I know several people born in Germany who are from Turskish ancestry and decided to live in Turkey, but none of them chose this because of the economic situation.
|
|
|
|