|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should Canada and the U.S. tolerate an intolerant Islam? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Bliyaal writes:
GIA writes: Bliyaal If they can get into the country then they will fall under the laws that they want to tear down. Like I said, your morals stop at the borders and that's scary. Not to quibble but as GIA says, it's the law that would stop violations of human rights within your borders, not any moral concern on GIA's part. "If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2389 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
True... That's even scarier
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The refugees dying in their thousands is more carnage than terrorists have managed to inflict on us in decades of earnest attempts. Indeed. Folks dismissive of Islam's intolerance regularly fail to see that those most affected by it are Muslims.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It was shown that your argument makes no sense. It only works if we consider immigrant Muslims as analogous to incoming Europeansi.e., as invaders. And if we view Muslim immigrants this way, our reasons for refusing them entry are even greater.
Meanwhile, I stand by my statement: the immigrants who should have been kept out were us. Obviously anyone who goes on the Internet and argues that events responsible for their existence should never have taken place is only passing time between bowel movements. Why should anyone take your nonsense seriously?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Folks dismissive of Islam's intolerance regularly fail to see that those most affected by it are Muslims. Folks Which is why it is so surprising that folks are so concerned about themselves they will happily let children and elderly freeze and drown rather than trying to help the real victims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Why is that surprising?
Certainly you don't think it is the West's job to save all these folks from their own ideological nightmare? At some point you're no longer helping but merely enabling.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
The Europeans were not considered as invaders by the indigenous people. They were welcomed. Ever hear of Thanksgiving? It only works if we consider immigrant Muslims as analogous to incoming Europeansi.e., as invaders. It was only their behaviour after they arrived that made their hosts want to deport them. By analogy, if the refugees misbehave when they are here, we would deport them. That's pretty much the plan.
Jon writes:
Maybe you should try some introspection.
Why should anyone take your nonsense seriously?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: The Europeans were not considered as invaders by the indigenous people. They were welcomed. The initial response of indigenous American tribes to the arrival of Europeans varied and included hostility. The analogy of the arrival of Europeans in the Americas to immigration into a modern state doesn't seem very strong. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
Jon writes: That, of course, is just an anecdote. If we look at actual evidence (surveys of what people believe) we find things like this bit that Mod kindly pointed out long ago but has been doing a good job of forgetting:
quote: Middle-Eastern Muslims are by and large fundamentalists of a nature that makes our own Christian fundamentalists look like kittens. It's not unreasonable to want to keep their crap out of the West. So, they agree with the death penalty just like many of their counterparts in the west do. As John Oliver said (paraphrased), "whether you are stoning people to death, boiling them alive, or having them put to sleep by a cute puppy dressed as Winnie the Pooh, you are still getting the same result." I'm anti-death penalty, yet I can understand those people who advocate for this to remain as a penalty. I do not agree with them, but I understand where they are coming from. As for this: Jon writes: What I have said is we have no obligation to receive such folks and should, given what we know of Muslims in the region be very cautious about importing extreme radicalism of the kind the West has already fought enough wars to get rid of in its own borders. How much radicalism have we "imported" into our country through accepting refugees...I wonder if someone happened to run the actual numbers. Oh wait, they have:
Syrian Refugees don't pose a serious security threat From this link:
CATO Institute writes: Of the 859,629 refugees admitted from 2001 onwards, only three have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks on targets outside of the United States, and none was successfully carried out. That is one terrorism-planning conviction for every 286,543 refugees that have been admitted. To put that in perspective, about 1 in every 22,541 Americans committed murder in 2014. The terrorist threat from Syrian refugees in the United States is hyperbolically over-exaggerated and we have very little to fear from them because the refugee vetting system is so thorough. If you think that radicalized individuals are going to wait the, on average, three years to arrive in this country with refugee status when other options (student visa, tourist visas, or asylum) are available that have a small amount of vetting compared to attempting for refugee status, then I think you have swallowed the fear politicians are selling far too readily. The CATO Institute continues:
CATO Institute writes: The UNHCR annually refers less than one percent of all refugees for resettlement. In 2014, they referred a mere 103,890 to all resettlement nations. That year, the United States accepted 69,933 refugees, or about 0.5 percent of the total number of all refugees in the world, but over 67 percent of all those referred by UNHCR. In 2015, the United States has accepted only 1,682 Syrian refugees, or 0.042 percent of the 4,045,650 registered Syrian refugees. Only one out of every 2,405 Syrian refugees in a camp was resettled in the United States in 2015. So, these are the numbers. You are far more likely to get shot by your neighbor in the United States than you are to be threatened by a Syrian refugee, regardless of their religion.The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
And the response today toward Muslim immigrants varies and includes hostility. The analogy works even if it isn't a Great Wall.
The initial response of indigenous American tribes to the arrival of Europeans varied and included hostility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Jon writes: Certainly you don't think it is the West's job to save all these folks from their own ideological nightmare? East, West, North, South.We are all people. Of course it's our job. Because we're people.Your division is arbitrary and useless and entirely part of the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The natives didn't have a country for the europeans to immigrate into, nor did they have a say in whether or not they would "let" them in.
That's not analogous to citizens asking another country to allow them to seek refuge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat Sci writes:
Sure they did. They had their territories with disputed boundaries, just like white folks have.
The natives didn't have a country for the europeans to immigrate into... Cat Sci writes:
They had a say. They said, "Yes." Later on, when they changed their minds and said, "No," their lack of might failed to make them right.
... nor did they have a say in whether or not they would "let" them in. Cat Sci writes:
The Mayflower pilgrims, for one example, were seeking refuge, and it was granted.
That's not analogous to citizens asking another country to allow them to seek refuge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Sure they did. They had their territories with disputed boundaries, just like white folks have. It was not just like white folks had. They didn't even have property rights, and had nothing in the way of an immigration policy.
They had a say. No, they didn't have a say in whether or not they would allow us on to the continent. All they could do was fight us if they didn't like it. That's not analogous to a country making decisions on their immigration policy. It's not 'welcome or fight'; the country has the option of legally disallowing it. The natives did not have this option.
They said, "Yes." Later on, when they changed their minds and said, "No," They were not a cohesive enough group to qualify their response to the european invasion with a "yes or no".
their lack of might failed to make them right. That is, they did not have a say.
The Mayflower pilgrims, for one example, were seeking refuge, and it was granted. Not "granted", just not fought. That's different from the question of whether or not a country's immigration policy should grant refugee status to certain immigrants. It's just a completely different question. Analogizing it with the response of native americans to european invation doesn't even begin to cover it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat Sci writes:
You're working too hard at misunderstanding. The point of an analogy is to recognize the similarities, not grasp at every straw to ignore the similarities.
It's not 'welcome or fight'; the country has the option of legally disallowing it. The natives did not have this option.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024