nihilon_traveller on 24/5/2017 at 20:34
Quote Posted by Krush
Don't you see how that's even
worse? It means we already have millions of potential ticking time bombs living in Europe. And even if the original colonists are not immediately violent, their children or grandchildren will murder you later.
Doesn't it make sense to close the gates now, and stop all immigration from "time-bomb" nations?
That's political racism. That's the same stuff you could hear about Jewish community in Germany in the 1930s. How can you not realize that 99,999% of immigrants' children don't commit terrorist acts?
edit: Because Polish government's stance on the topic has been mentioned I would also like to say that I live in Poland, I think that we should accept refugees from war-ridden countries, I think that living in multicultural societies is good for the future of humanity and I'm mad at my government for playing on people's fears and bolstering hate.
Thor on 24/5/2017 at 20:53
Quote Posted by nihilon_traveller
That's political racism. That's the same stuff you could hear about Jewish community in Germany in the 1930s. How can you not realize that 99,999% of immigrants' children don't commit terrorist acts?
I don't really take any statistics seriously, because it's usually met with different statistics from a different source (or made up statistics of feels) + added verbal abuse, but to counter that very low percent, I'll throw in something like 13% that I saw in some random place, which refers to the european (or a specific country) muslims that think that the terrorism stuff is all cool and good.
Krush didn't exactly propose to gas all the muslims. Not even the terrorists.
Additionally, while we may not be racist, many muslims (and jews as well, btw), are. So they can be racist but we can't. On our own turf.
Starker on 24/5/2017 at 21:09
You know, coming here and reading how Europe totally deserves terror attacks because they aren't discriminating enough against muslims, you have to ask whether these people themselves are aware they are being useful idiots for the terror groups who want to provoke a global religious conflict.
So, by that logic, to prevent nationalist terror attacks we should ban nationalism and deport all nationalists? To prevent right wing and left wing terrorism we should deport all right and left leaning people? Sure, most nationalists etc won't commit terrorist attacks, but if I you have 20 million candies and 3 of them were poisoned, instead of finding out which ones are poisoned apparently you should deport all the candies regardless of the cost or ill will or more poison candies that it will lead to. Because that makes more sense, somehow, when you live in a fantasy land where differently coloured candies are the source of all your problems and the only cure is a big wall.
nihilon_traveller on 24/5/2017 at 21:13
@Thor Also Hitler didn't propose to gas the Jews (moreso, on the eve of the holocaust the nazis were discussing moving the Jews to Madagaskar). It's dehumanizing a group of people (by ethnicity, religion, etc.) that sets the scene for genocide. Muslim communities were part of Europe for centuries. There are 2 billion Muslims on Earth and their religion has hardly anything to do with terrorism, which is a political act. The real Daesh supporters form powerful political agendas in many countries across the globe. Who benefits from terrorist attacks? Certainly not the refugees, and surely not the Muslims currently living in Europe.
heywood on 24/5/2017 at 21:48
Quote Posted by Krush
As I already addressed above: The fact that many of these attackers are second-generation immigrants means the problem is
even worse than we thought. The ones you let in today might have no hatred against the West, but their children will conduct jihad operations decades later.
Again, what evidence do you have that Syrian refugees have conducted terrorist attacks or will in the future?
Your argument can be summarized as "since some Muslims are terrorists, all Muslims are potentially terrorists," which is failed logic.
Quote:
When one man can kill 20 and wound dozens, or kill 49 and wound 50 more as in Orlando...or a small group can kill or injure 482 people (Bataclan attacks)...then the risk is just too great. If there is a bowl of 100 candies and they tell you only three are deadly poisoned, how many of them will you eat?
The risk of terrorism is vastly overblown by the media and people like you. In the 15.5 years since Sep 11, 2001, the number of American deaths from terrorist attacks is very small. Smaller than the number of people killed by lightning, or from falling out of bed, or from lawnmowers, or from being shot by toddlers. And yet you would ban a quarter of the world's population due to this vanishingly slight risk, which has no connection to the vast, vast majority of Muslims. That is completely irrational.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure the 12 year old girls at the Arianna Grande concert didn't sign off on any bombings of Iraq or Syria, so they shouldn't have to pay for it with their lives. It seems like Islam has decided that we're all responsible for these things, no matter the age, sex or nationality. Collective punishment.
And the 12 year old refugees Pyrian mentioned didn't sign off on any terrorist attacks, so they shouldn't have to pay for it with their lives. Collective punishment is EXACTLY what you are proposing.
According to your logic, it doesn't matter how many Syrians or other Middle Easterners die, it only matters if a Westerner dies (except for Muslim Westerners I guess), which is a downright sick view. And its contrary to the values that America was founded on.
Krush on 24/5/2017 at 22:01
Wrong. Not letting armies of middle easterners into our countries is not the same thing as genociding them. We have no obligation to take anyone in, especially when our own people are going to be harmed by taking them in.
heywood on 24/5/2017 at 22:57
There are no Middle Eastern armies trying to get here.
There is no evidence-based argument that Syrian refugees are going to harm us.
We do have a legal obligation to accept refugees.
We also have a moral obligation to accept refugees, especially since we're over there fighting in their civil war and we are one of the parties causing the refugee crisis.
Tony_Tarantula on 24/5/2017 at 23:54
Quote Posted by Nicker
fuck
you
tony
Does the shoe fit a little too well?
All that is happening is the trees of your ideology are bearing fruit. Nothing more.
Quote Posted by nihilon_traveller
The question should be: how many terrorist attacks in Europe in the recent years were committed by immigrants? Virtually none. The terrorists were either born in Europe or living there for decades. So yes, you're spreading misinformation.
Inline Image:
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/32e7e6832758637e331dfbff209c1a19Quote Posted by heywood
Living without debt is great, but not realistic for most people. In order to get into a career that pays a middle class income, a bachelor's degree is becoming a necessity. To get into a career that pays an upper middle class income, a master's or doctorate is often necessary.
You guys know how often I harp on trying think outside of the coastal white people in white collar jobs bubble?
Prime example on display right here.
counterpoint: (
https://www.trade-schools.net/articles/highest-paying-jobs-without-degree.asp)
Statistics aside, there's even more cash to be made operating independently in those areas. I used to work with a guy who pulled in 200k+ annually owning a plumbing business (shuttered after his business partner had a divorce and quit).
Quote:
This is about the most simplistic reading of that period of history possible. There was the Reformation and the numerous wars of religion during this period and none of it was particularly secular. We tend to think of Protestants as the kinder gentler Christianity now, but they were the ones stripping the paint off churches for being too colourful. By our standards they basically represent fundamentalist religious insurgency, with the added bonus of the doctrine being almost roll-your-own for a while there. (although looking at a good chunk of US religion today all of this is less surprising really)
And the key event that made the rise of Protestants take off?
It was the King of England making his church pledge allegiance to the King instead of the Pope. My statement glosses over some of the details but is basically correct: one of the key attributes of Protestantism vs. Catholicism was that it tended to be much more under the control of secular nobility and royalty than the Catholic church was, which had its own internal hierarchy that was very frequently at odds with the royalty.
Trance on 25/5/2017 at 00:01
Source this image, please. A load of pins on a map isn't evidence of anything unless you link what it's from and what it represents.
Starker on 25/5/2017 at 00:58
Quote Posted by Trance
Source this image, please. A load of pins on a map isn't evidence of anything unless you link what it's from and what it represents.
It's probably one of those maps that purport to show refugee and migrant crime rates or something like that. Basically, right wing activists compile lists of news reports where the perpetrator might have been a migrant (for example, mentioned as "dark-skinned" or "southern looking") in an effort to show that there is a crime wave happening. As anyone who has had even cursory experience with crime statistics can tell you, it's a load of BS. They don't even attempt to count people charged with a crime or anything like that, they go by eyewitness reports and sometimes confuse the victims and the perpetrators.
There has been a small increase in crime rates with the influx of migrants, but it's mostly related to stuff like doing drugs and not paying bus fares: (
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2903116)
And even then, the crime rates in Germany are far lower compared to the crime rates in the US: (
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime)
