|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should Canada and the U.S. tolerate an intolerant Islam? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
Cat Sci writes: That's not analogous to citizens asking another country to allow them to seek refuge. The one commonality of nations is that they are specific instances of some large group of "we the people" trying to find their way. Make it "people asking people for sanctuary." Social and political evolution beyond the nation state is our species' greatest challenge to date. We'll do it or die. If we turn our backs on refugees, we turn our backs on a future for our kind. Western democracies express ideals that could lead that evolution; failing to follow through on those ideals is an existential threat far greater than ISIL."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Cat Sci writes: I don't subscribe to all that koombaya we're-all-one nonsense. Nor do I believe that failing to accept that will be our downfall. I wouldn't subscribe to your cheesy understanding either. Nonetheless, in light of your denial, I wonder who comprises the "we" and "our" you refer to in your denial of "us". Good on the Syrians, though."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Cat Sci writes: All of humanity can still survive while realizing that those people over there are not the same as these people over here. All of humanity is not surviving now, so good luck with that. Nations prioritizing self-interest on a SRO planet are like a bunch of sociopaths knife-fighting in a dark room full of people. Lots of people die. The darker the room, and the sharper the sociopaths' knives, the more people die. If "all of humanity" is just the last sociopath standing, I'd just as soon die out. We're discussing terrorism in part because of the constant migration of increasingly powerful destructive technology out of national hands into those of individuals and small groups. It takes fewer and fewer people to destabilize a nation, and destablilized nations in a world of WMDs is a recipe for disaster and possible extinction. It's not kumbaya at all; it's simply extrapolating past and current military, political and technological trends. What resources did you need to kill 10,000 people a century ago? What do you need now? One nut with a nuke, one nutty microbiologist, one mad chemist... I look at the trend lines of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and those of nation-based conflicts, and I'm not optimistic that we'll survive the nation stage of development, at least not in any form resembling our present lifestyle. But I am pragmatic. I'd like to see 11 million undocumented residents made legal so they can pay income, Social Security and Medicare taxes, rather than watching their unscrupulous employers both dodge their share of the taxes and exploit the workers. I need that COLA. I do understand some folks have no use for moral first principles when they consider politics, but I still try to go there first, before considering my self-interest. Blame Sunday school. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
What do you mean? ... What do you mean? I'm baffled by your bafflement.
All of humanity is not surviving now Sure it is, our population's growing at an exponential rate Exponential population growth on a rapidly diminishing, finite sphere of resources contested by an increasing number of ever more powerful actors doesn't describe species survival to me.
SRO planet Standing Room Only? I don't see that, there's plenty of land with < 100 people/km2. What do you mean? There are already more people than the earth can manage sustainably. The "standing" room for a human being today is not just foot space, but all the space and resources required to support that person in an industrialized world. How much arable land is available for new cultivation? How much is being lost to desertification? How much more industrialization can the atmosphere--and the climate--withstand? Was it so hard to see that was what I meant by an SRO planet? Literalizing simple figurative language in a discussion is kinda pointless. Why is it meaningful to you? We're surviving the same way a jumper does while he falls, exulting in his acceleration."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Okay. I guess our own meanings are always clear.
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Jon writes: The topic here isn't just about 'refugees'. Threads go many places, of course, but the primary focus of the OP was Muslim immigration:
GIA writes: If the West, including Canada and the U.S., continues to allow Muslim immigration we will also have to live in fear of having Islam attack us if we happen to offend their religious sensitivities by speech or expression. Do we really want the type of future that they are presently suffering east of the Atlantic? Should we close our borders to Islam before we have to suffer Islamic fundamentalist, extremists and even moderate who will attack our political systems so as to implement Sharia?"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
We're all more likely to be shot up in a school, theater or work-place by a white American male than we are to be victims of Muslim terror...or in our homes, because the kids got into the guns.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Cat Sci writes: Anyways, if I got you right: our survival is doomed because limited resources make our growth unsustainable and sociopolitical evolution beyond the nation state is necessary to survive that. ? Maybe I'm too naively futuristic, but couldn't looking away from the planet and towards space be a viable alternative to making us all get along? (collectively) I'm not saying your idea sucks, I'm just not convinced it is necessary. Perhaps we should find a new topic for that, and just high-five for both welcoming Syrian refugees. Or not, w/e. (Upon re-reading my characterization, it seemed cheesier than I intended. I get why you thought I was being disingenuously pedantic with the later questions. I try to avoid too many rhetorical questions so as to not dilute the sincerity of the real ones. So if I'm asking you, in particular, then I prolly mean it.) Thanks, especially for the tone of your reply. I'm in the middle of a med adjustment (endocrine, not psych), and I think my irritability has shown here for a few days...(months....years...). Apologies to all; individual apologies are available upon application (shouts out to Coyote and AZPaul3...). So, first, yeah: high five on the Syrian refugees. The practical arguments for immigration are the best--powerful, with wide commonality of interests--but the ideological ones against are so offensive to me that I usually blow right past the pragmatic. Not so much doomed by limited resources vs. exponential growth, serious as that is, but rather existentially threatened because nationalism is preventing global solutions to global problems: that is an existential threat, esp. in the context of resources vs. growth. I don't know if we can get sustainable colonies off-planet before the disaffected pull us down with their cold dying hands Maybe. I think it will be close; I agree with Hawking that it is imperative, and in the meantime we should STFU. On the other hand, I'm old, and like the hard drinking and smoking Leonard Bernstein said when he reached 70, "I beat the rap!" Like many old-timers, I sometimes find myself watching younger folks stubbing their toes with grim satisfaction; I fight it. Family here--more later."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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024