Should Canada and the U.S. tolerate an intolerant Islam?

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.

Why is that surprising?

I guess its not. People are groupish bastards after all.

Certainly you don't think it is the West's job to save all these folks from their own ideological nightmare?

No.

I think we should help victims when and wherever we can.

At some point you're no longer helping but merely enabling.

Enabling what? People to stay alive? Deal.

Social and political evolution beyond the nation state is our species' greatest challenge to date. We'll do it or die.

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.

And actually, it doesn't impact my position on Syrian refugees anyways.

I'll continue to be selfish :

I want tens of thousands of Syrian to move to St. Louis because it will be better for St. Louis, and by extension, better for me.

It worked with the Bosnians and I have no reason to think that it won't work with the Syrians.

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.

Nonetheless, in light of your denial, I wonder who comprises the "we" and "our" you refer to in your denial of "us".

All of humanity can still survive while realizing that those people over there are not the same as these people over here.

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.

All of humanity is not surviving now

Sure it is, our population's growing at an exponential rate.

What do you mean?

a SRO planet

Standing Room Only?

I don't see that, there's plenty of land with < 100 people/km².

What do you mean?

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.

Was it so hard to see that was what I meant by an SRO planet?

Yes, I had no idea what you were talking about.

Okay. I guess our own meanings are always clear.

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.

Oh stop.

The death penalty is barbaric enough as it is without having it carried out on people simply for their sleeping around or being gay.

How much radicalism have we "imported" into our country through accepting refugees...I wonder if someone happened to run the actual numbers.

Did you read the other threads?

And the topic here isn't just about 'refugees'.

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 topic here isn't just about 'refugees'.

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?

Pardon me, I had to run. I was gonna type more last time.

Okay. I guess our own meanings are always clear.

Of course. Just don't forget Hanlon's razor when questioning a misunderstanding.

I had to google SRO, and I wasn't even sure you meant standing room only.

I'm not trying to be cheesy

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.)

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:

I know; which is why I said this thread isn't just about 'refugees'.

I know; which is why I said this thread isn't just about 'refugees'.

Are you really too afraid of terrorists to let refugees into your area?