Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On September 12 2015 01:06 Ghostcom wrote: I'm fairly certain the KKK are not currently immigrating to Europe and have not historically proven to be exceptionally hard to integrate. Then again, I'm unsure what you are even arguing? Extremist Christians exist? No shit? They don't pose any real issue for Europe though.
Extremist Muslims don't pose any real issue to Europe either. They are currently fighting a war in a hellhole. The vast majority of sane people (just your regular Syrians, both Muslim and other) is trying to get away from this war, and flee (to Europe).
Using Muslim extremism as a reason to not accept refugees is the most twisted and upside down reason I have heard. These people are fucking well FLEEING Muslim extremism.
Read my post again - the word immigrant is being used for aa reason. They hardly qualify as refugees when they have traveled through all of Europe and been "safe" for weeks.
Extremist Muslims pose a very real threat to Europe - not because of terrorism of which there has been plenty (but without any real effect), but because of the tension they cause by refusing to be integrated and embrace the customs of the country they immigrate to.
Before ISIS emerged i heard Muslims are generally very peaceful group that dosn't bother anyone anywhere apart of minor incidents by extremists. After ISIS emerged i hear that Muslims are generally very peaceful group that dosn't really bother anyone anywhere apart of some minor incidents that apparently caused milions of Syrians to migrate to Europe. This is very interesting and entertaining, keep the politicial correctness up.
On September 12 2015 01:26 Narw wrote: Before ISIS emerged i heard Muslims are generally very peaceful group that dosn't bother anyone anywhere apart of minor incidents by extremists. After ISIS emerged i hear that Muslims are generally very peaceful group that dosn't really bother anyone anywhere apart of some minor incidents that apparently caused milions of Syrians to migrate to Europe. This is very interesting and entertaining, keep the politicial correctness up.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims on earth. ISIS numbers around 30,000-40,000 and controls a shitty little section of the Middle East that no one wants a piece of. So the vast majority of Muslims are still peaceful. The only way they are all violent is through some amazing mental gymnastics.
Also the people fleeing to the EU are not just fleeing ISIS. There is also the Syrian regime gassing them and dropping barrel bombs.
Yeah, christians were violent in the past, shocking news. But why does it matter? A lot of muslims from Maghreb are violent TODAY and that's why Western right-wing parties don't like them. It has nothing to do with crusades, Irish immigrants from 19th century or other historical events brought up in this thread. Maybe it is possible to assimilate them, maybe it isn't. However I think it's undeniable that their pressence in Europe will cause a lot of problems (not saying it's their or anyone's fault). Claims that those problems are imaginary are as annoying as saying that every muslim wants to behead christians or that every catholic priest is a pedophile.
By "a lot muslims are violent" I mean that muslim extremists are a big threat, not that they're proportionally more violent than any other group.
On September 11 2015 19:59 Faust852 wrote: I don't get why the fear of Islam is so taboo here. I mean, if you follow a little bit of what is happening in middle orient because of Islam, your fears are totally reasonable.
Please tell me, why should i fear Muslims?
I had several of them in my class... Never was an Issue. I work with several of them at my Job... Never had an Issue. I talk to them and they dislike what is Happening in the middle east just as much as i do.
Now... Should i fear Muslims because of constant news coverage of bad shit some of the most extreme ones do when everything I experienced suggests to not? Should i also fear Christians because of the Northern Ireland conflict, Brejvik (or whichever way he is spelled) or various other nutjobs that might or might not have directly used their religion as inspiration/reason for their crimes?
As for your Point about Islam in General... I don't exactly see how it does much better than Christianity in this regard? What the Islam lacks is the period we call "enlightenment" in the Christian world... The only Thing that makes Islam worse than christianity, is that more Moslems actually still believe in its book.
And why would your anecdotal experience be a valid argument ? I grew up in Brussels where Islam was already at over 15% of representation 10y ago, so I went to school were at least 10% of my schoolmate were muslim. It's obvious I have a lot of muslim friends. I dated a muslim girl. I never had any issue with any muslim myself. All the muslim I know and talk to aren't liking what is happening is Syria either.
But I totally dismiss my personal anecdotes to see the objective view. Over 50% of the newer generation of muslims who were born in EU are in favor of a Shariah Law, which should replace the current secular laws. Muslim have incredible difficulties to assimilate to the culture, why do you think 1/4 of Brussels is Muslim ? Because they isolate themself and don't want to live in a multicultural state. This obviously lead to an incredible difference in term of crime per capita. Muslim communities being way more dangerous. They are incredibly picky, and abuse the hospitality of their host country : Lot of school were forced to serve Hallal meal to kids, Part of London had to remove their fucking Christmas' trees because it's offensive. You can't call anything like Eastern, Christmas or whatever because its offensive. Meanwhile they'll do huge manifestation to get their ugly mosquees. Their stupid religion force them to not eat shit for Ramadan, so their breath smell like ass, and they are absolutly not productive during this time.
Anyway, you living in Switzerland and saying muslim are fine is hilarious when you put a ban on minarets because it's ugly and noisy.
The new wave of migrants are so picky, they refuse what we offer to them, they want to live in Merkel's Paradise, and sometime it's not enough, Sweden is better. They yell Allah Oukbar in train, destroy the aid people give them, block every fucking train, and destroy properties when they aren't served fast enough. Seriously yeah. Islamophobia is legit.
On September 12 2015 01:48 Velr wrote: Could you please Link me to these masses of violent muslims in Europe? Because i damn sure dont see them anywhere.
No, if you don't think that there is a problem with immigrant violence in Europe then probably we see facts in different ways so the discussion is pointless. And I didn't say there are masses of them.
On September 12 2015 01:48 Velr wrote: Could you please Link me to these masses of violent muslims in Europe? Because i damn sure dont see them anywhere.
No, if you don't think that there is a problem with immigrant violence in Europe then probably we see facts in different ways so the discussion is pointless. And I didn't say there are masses of them.
Agreed that violence toward immigrants and by immigrants is always an issue worth discussing. But that is not a problem unique to Muslim immigrants and that cannot be solved or mitigated. The discussion at hand is people refuting claims that Muslims by their very nature are a threat to the EU way of life and culture.
Are you actually negating that accepting people from region of world where extremism is rampart, who often don't have any kind of documents and police/inteligence agencies can't get enough info on em is not dangerous? At same time for example i can't even enter USA without Visa and background check.
It's very easy to be sharing and caring when this dosn't directly endanger you or your kids.
On September 12 2015 01:48 Velr wrote: Could you please Link me to these masses of violent muslims in Europe? Because i damn sure dont see them anywhere.
Crime statistic per ethnicity/religion are forbidden in most European countries. Luckily the Danes are still sane. Thats it for me since the ban hammer is looming for everyone who likes to base arguments on numbers instead of emotions. I doubt any of you ever lived in a muslim country otherwise you wouldnt be this naive.
On September 12 2015 02:22 739 wrote: I'm wondering what your opinion on Muslim migrants would be, if you lived in Hungary instead of USA, lol.
You can bring them right to Boston, I have no problem. My state is already preparing to accept refugees. And they can sign as may protests to our Christmas Trees they want too. We have that discussion yearly, so they might as well be part of it.
It's funny because a colleague asked me if I was a marxist just today. I answered that I read his books, but do not consider myself a marxist. There are plenty of things I disagree in Marx's work, but I'm still responsible and free enough to judge the value of his work without instantly going back to this boring discussion about orthodox marxism, marxians, etc. It seems like you can't do that, and instantly discard Marx because he created hordes of orthodoxes. The fact that Marx's children are not all beautiful does not mean that Tocqueville is more valuable than Marx. May I remember you what Marx responded to french orthodox ? If this is marxism, then I am not a marxist.
I do not care what you label yourself, or the classification you give to your thoughts. If you allow a certain principle to be the basis of your argument, it must be a principle to which you too would submit. Mohammad the Prophet has been more read, studied and regurgitated than Marx and Tocqueville combined, yet one suspects you would find this inadequate proof of his credentials as a thinker and "prophet." You yourself would not bow to the force of a man's popularity, so why should I?
Some of your comments looks like Clastre reversed marxism - where the superstructure define the infrastructure. But at which point does your analysis of the role of passions and interactions plays in our politics (something I usually agree with from monday to saturday) leads you to believe that interests play no role in politics. Merely arguing that interests are social construct does not lead to believe that they are secondary. My gender is a social construct and still define me to a certain extent - and me being of this gender and not the other does not boals down to the "indoctrination" I suffered at the hand of my evil parents (it's a little broader than that I believe). Also, it is not my "indoctrination" that create groups, but common behaviors, common positions within the structures and - in this topic it seems - borders. Those were there long before me.
Interests are everywhere and affect everything, so it is not even worth talking about. What is objectionable is when someone pretends that “self-interest” and “compassion” are mutually-exclusive qualities, when they are not. When you say that what we are seeing in “Germany” is not really the emanation of the one thing because it is really an emanation of the other thing, you are actually assigning a distinction without a difference. You are simply choosing a set of loaded terms to convey a certain attitude you have about (let us pretend that Nyxisto is right about this because it is the only reason I can imagine for anyone to even open his mouth thus) Germany.
However, the act of choosing the high-inference wording is not merely a neutral manipulation of context. Just as certain people during this crisis will reason that “Syrians are human beings, Germans are human beings, therefore we all belong to the family of humanity” as the premise for their ethical reasonings, your saying that “Germans act compassionately because they follow their self-interest” has a similar equalising implication. The second implied part of that sentence might as well be “Rapists rape because they follow their self-interest. Therefore Germans and rapists share the same primary motivations.”
There you have the implication of your “primacy of interests” spiel. What an advance for the conscience of humanity.
P.S.
I know what you actually said was that Germans are doing what they do to achieve demographic equilibrium, etc., to which I said that you have no facts, because the assertion being looped about to support itself is not evidence. Show me the German mind, either individually, or collectively, which expresses his opinion in these terms. Short of this, you are simply asserting that the vast majority of Germans are lying about their true motivations, and you know that they are lying, because "self-interest."
On September 12 2015 02:12 Narw wrote: Are you actually negating that accepting people from region of world where extremism is rampart, who often don't have any kind of documents and police/inteligence agencies can't get enough info on em is not dangerous? At same time for example i can't even enter USA without Visa and background check.
It's very easy to be sharing and caring when this dosn't directly endanger you or your kids.
This is what refugees are. They don't very often come from places of happiness and wealth, they have by definition seen a lot of shit, if they hadn't they wouldn't be refugees. Also why are you assuming that everybody that disagrees with you does not live around refugees or immigrants or is not faced with the changes these things bring in his everyday life? On the contrary, the biggest opposition at least here in Germany originates from the ex East-German states, in which only 2% of Germany's Muslims reside.
This is another big part of this discussion. Everybody on the "pro-asylum side" to call it that is being viewed as part of some affluent elite and simply doesn't understand the troubles of the poor working man, comes up in a lot of WhiteDog's arguments too. Given the fact that more than half of our population supports the current course we must all be very rich apparently. There is a lot of empathy for the refugee situation coming from the working class, too. Seeing them getting used by right-wing demagogues is somewhat pathetic.
About why we have that mindset here in Germany:
I believe Moltke really is more on point here. Obviously we know that it helps keeping our economy going, but first and foremost the refugee stance is seen as part of our responsibility, protecting human dignity and such. The need to set a moral example has always been a priority in post-war Germany, the Energiewende is another example of this.
On September 12 2015 02:12 Narw wrote: Are you actually negating that accepting people from region of world where extremism is rampart, who often don't have any kind of documents and police/inteligence agencies can't get enough info on em is not dangerous? At same time for example i can't even enter USA without Visa and background check.
It's very easy to be sharing and caring when this dosn't directly endanger you or your kids.
This is another big part of this discussion. Everybody on the "pro-asylum side" to call it that is being viewed as part of some affluent elite and simply doesn't understand the troubles of the poor working man, comes up in a lot of WhiteDog's arguments too. Given the fact that more than half of our population supports the current course we must all be very rich apparently. There is a lot of empathy for the refugee situation coming from the working class, too. Seeing them getting used by right-wing demagogues is somewhat pathetic.
Welp, you are the richest country in the EU, you have very low unemployment, and very low birthrate, so immigration is very good for you. There is also this stupid WW2 guilt that you should have toss long ago but well. Also you picked the good straw with your Turkish immigration, considering they are much more moderate than the arab community in general.
On September 12 2015 01:06 Ghostcom wrote: I'm fairly certain the KKK are not currently immigrating to Europe and have not historically proven to be exceptionally hard to integrate. Then again, I'm unsure what you are even arguing? Extremist Christians exist? No shit? They don't pose any real issue for Europe though.
Extremist Muslims don't pose any real issue to Europe either. They are currently fighting a war in a hellhole. The vast majority of sane people (just your regular Syrians, both Muslim and other) is trying to get away from this war, and flee (to Europe).
Using Muslim extremism as a reason to not accept refugees is the most twisted and upside down reason I have heard. These people are fucking well FLEEING Muslim extremism.
Read my post again - the word immigrant is being used for aa reason. They hardly qualify as refugees when they have traveled through all of Europe and been "safe" for weeks.
Extremist Muslims pose a very real threat to Europe - not because of terrorism of which there has been plenty (but without any real effect), but because of the tension they cause by refusing to be integrated and embrace the customs of the country they immigrate to.
They uprooted their house and home not to come to Europe, but to flee the bombs falling around them. Can you really be surprised that after they have left their home, their livelihood and everything, they at least try to make the best of a bad situation and at least end up somewhere they have a hope of effectively settling down? While I'm sure it doesn't hurt that Germany has a well-functioning economy where they have a hope of getting a job, most of the reason for making their way all the way to Germany is because Germany is one of the countries least likely to send them back to the hellhole they are fleeing.
The most recent events in areas surrounding Germany are unsurprising. Is it really weird when refugees in Hungary do not want to stay there, despite promises they will be allowed to when the Hungarian prime minister repeatedly decries that he doesn't want Muslim migrants in his country?
Yeah, I'm sure that's how that narrative works. Of course they walk across the better part of a continent because none of it is safe. It's a very deliberate decision for them to move this far. Now if that's something we condone or not is an entirely different question, but they're not doing it because it's the easiest option to not be threatened anymore, that's what the countless refugees who aren't in Europe did.
I do not care what you label yourself, or the classification you give to your thoughts. If you allow a certain principle to be the basis of your argument, it must be a principle to which you too would submit. Mohammad the Prophet has been more read, studied and regurgitated than Marx and Tocqueville combined, yet one suspects you would find this inadequate proof of his credentials as a thinker and "prophet." You yourself would not bow to the force of a man's popularity, so why should I?
Listen, you misunderstood me. My point was that you are ignorant about Marx, most likely you've barely ever read anything from him, and that, since you are subject to outside influence (from liberals who see Tocqueville as a prophet and a god), you discard his work out of ignorance.
Interests are everywhere and affect everything, so it is not even worth talking about. What is objectionable is when someone pretends that “self-interest” and “compassion” are mutually-exclusive qualities, when they are not. When you say that what we are seeing in “Germany” is not really the emanation of the one thing because it is really an emanation of the other thing, you are actually assigning a distinction without a difference. You are simply choosing a set of loaded terms to convey a certain attitude you have about (let us pretend that Nyxisto is right about this because it is the only reason I can imagine for anyone to even open his mouth thus) Germany.
P.S.
I know what you actually said was that Germans are doing what they do to achieve demographic equilibrium, etc., to which I said that you have no facts, because the assertion being looped about to support itself is not evidence. Show me the German mind, either individually, or collectively, which expresses his opinion in these terms. Short of this, you are simply asserting that the vast majority of Germans are lying about their true motivations, and you know that they are lying, because "self-interest."
You are misundestanding my arguments (or misrepresenting them). I never stated that compassion didn't happen nor exist - I even said that interests and compassion certainly goes hand in hand in regards to Germany. I also acknowledged your argument that compassion from what you call the "little" is genuine. As an orwellian I truly believe that the worker class distinguish itself by a "common decency", and that, because of it, the common people would indeed refuse to stay iddle before people in distress like the refugees (I also think that it is this very common decency that changed the regard of french towards refugees). So to clarify : I never stated that Germans felt no compassion towards refugees nor that interests and compassions are exclusive.
But still, you continue into misrepresenting my arguments and what I was discussing. You are not saying that the people that welcome refugee have compassion towards refugee : what you were saying is that there is an assymetry in compassion. Understand : you are saying that the german are more compassionate people that other european. I responded to you that a vulgar materialism - and again I stress on the vulgar (that I stole from Zizek) - could help going away from those kind of analysis that always put european people against each other from a cultural standpoint (which is a form of cultural racism). It is indeed easier for german to show their compassionate side when it also goes hand in hand with their own interests. But I understand full well that you don't desire to respond to that specific argument mainly because you are yourself very biased in your point of view : I remember your old post and the common point is that you always take the same side and support your claim on a partial vision of history.
However, the act of choosing the high-inference wording is not merely a neutral manipulation of context. Just as certain people during this crisis will reason that “Syrians are human beings, Germans are human beings, therefore we all belong to the family of humanity” as the premise for their ethical reasonings, your saying that “Germans act compassionately because they follow their self-interest” has a similar equalising implication. The second implied part of that sentence might as well be “Rapists rape because they follow their self-interest. Therefore Germans and rapists share the same primary motivations.”
There you have the implication of your “primacy of interests” spiel. What an advance for the conscience of humanity.
This is a really poor argument - almost a religious one.
PS : Describing me as a germanophobic is a good way to discard my arguments. Maybe tell me that I'm a communist, an anarchist or a racist and a facist, I'm used to it : most people who can't stand a good argument usually comes to that.
@Acrofales: I have already answered all of those points in this very thread, its getting very tiresome to be honest. No European country is going to send the refugees back as they are all bound by the non-refoulment principle. Heck, even half of those who get denied asylum because they are classified as economic immigrants still get to stay in Europe. The very first hit on Google would have told you this:
I'm not surprised in the least that the refugees when they are done fleeing from the war decide to turn immigrants to better their lot in life. Heck, who wouldn't? But to say that EU has any obligation to simply accept them when they turn immigrants is wrong. EU has no such obligation - legally or morally.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LlKhYEj.png)
