Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Ethnic diversity harms a country's social cohesion

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Then in good faith retract your unfounded assertion of "disgusting & contemptible"

Surely if you are going to indict so many people with such a broad brush, it falls on you to at least underpin that with some sort of logic, evidence, or at the very least explanation. 

 

It's not that broad.  I'm only talking about the disgusting and contemptible ones.  All the rest get a pass.  Same with any religion.  All any of them have to do is not try and make anyone else do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's not that broad.  I'm only talking about the disgusting and contemptible ones.  All the rest get a pass.  Same with any religion.  All any of them have to do is not try and make anyone else do anything.

Why would anybody need a pass from you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Why would anybody need a pass from you?

They get one, needed or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

Why would anyone want a pass from you?

They get one regardless.  I haven't got time to ask them all what they want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

They get one regardless.  I haven't got time to ask them all what they want.

What about the Taliban, do they get a pass too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

What about the Taliban, do they get a pass too?

Pakistan or Afghanistan?

Who were the ones who shot that kid in the head for going to school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

Pakistan or Afghanistan?

Who were the ones who shot that kid in the head for going to school?

It's the same Taliban on both sides of the border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

It's the same Taliban on both sides of the border.

Ah.  I was reading about their "complicated relationship"  It can't be that complicated then.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

Ah.  I was reading about their "complicated relationship'  It can't be that complicated then.

Do you give a pass to Mohamed Atta?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

You don't know who Mohamed Atta is?

I do, 9/11, but there's no point in such accusations nowadays, what with Google and all.

Edit> Sorry, it was a question, not an accusation.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

I do, 9/11, but there's no point in such accusations nowadays, what with Google and all

Accusations of what? You don't think he flew the plane into the WTC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

Accusations of what? You don't think he flew the plane into the WTC?

I edited my post. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Oh, wait a minute.  I see where the confusion is.  I don't have any.  Paranoid theories, that is.  As an immigrant, I'm in favour of immigration.  I'm against asking any immigrants questions about their beliefs, and I'm against such silliness as burka bans.

Are you in favour of outlawing the forcing of women to cover themselves head to toe in a burlap sack when they leave the house?

That's usually why a burka results.  Maybe every woman wearing a burka should trigger a police investigation to see what kind of abuse, if any, is happening in her home by the men in her family.

If I saw a white Canadian-born woman with a chain around her neck or ankles, I would also think it should trigger a police investigation.

Quote

I just have contempt and disgust for any religion that seeks to oppress and kill those who disagree with its tenets.  I abhor any oppression of women, gays, cartoonists, adulterers, etc.  I find anyone who agrees with such to be arseholes.  I don't for one minute think they should be made to change their views, as I believe in their right to be that kind of arsehole.  I just think they are arseholes for having such beliefs.

You have a right to think abusing women is fine, but you don't have a right to abuse women.  One is thought and speech, one is action.  One is legal, the other is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Are you in favour of outlawing the forcing of women to cover themselves head to toe in a burlap sack when they leave the house?

That's usually why a burka results.  Maybe every woman wearing a burka should trigger a police investigation to see what kind of abuse, if any, is happening in her home by the men in her family.

If I saw a white Canadian-born woman with a chain around her neck or ankles, I would also think it should trigger a police investigation.

You have a right to think abusing women is fine, but you don't have a right to abuse women.  One is thought and speech, one is action.  One is legal, the other is not.

I agree, but I'm pro choice.  A woman can choose to wear whatever she wants.  If there is any evidence of coercion, I would hope the authorities would act on it.

I don't hold out much hope of that in the west, as the authorities are pretty chicken when it comes to Islam.  Still, I would not tell a woman she could not wear one if she wants to.

That said, I was pleasantly surprised to see a recent conviction for FGM in the UK.  I find that encouraging and hope it would also apply to forcing a woman to wear a sack.

 

 

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Are you in favour of outlawing the forcing of women to cover themselves head to toe in a burlap sack when they leave the house?

That's usually why a burka results.  Maybe every woman wearing a burka should trigger a police investigation to see what kind of abuse, if any, is happening in her home by the men in her family.

If I saw a white Canadian-born woman with a chain around her neck or ankles, I would also think it should trigger a police investigation.

You have a right to think abusing women is fine, but you don't have a right to abuse women.  One is thought and speech, one is action.  One is legal, the other is not.

Why do you assume they see it as abuse? You may not like it, but that doesn't mean no one would make the choice to wear one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I agree, but I'm pro choice.  A woman can choose to wear whatever she wants.  If there is any evidence of coercion, I would hope the authorities would act on it.

I don't hold out much hope of that in the west, as the authorities are pretty chicken when it comes to Islam.  Still, I would not tell a woman she could not wear one if she wants to.

That's exactly right. People have the right to wear a burlap sack, but not a right to force another person to wear one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

That's exactly right. People have the right to wear a burlap sack, but not a right to force another person to wear one.

I agree.  As I said earlier, I was pleasantly surprised to see a recent conviction for FGM in the UK.  It's taken a long time and a lot of FGM but they got there in the end.

Before I am called on it, I know that FGM is a cultural barbarism that occurs in many places in the world, and is not solely an Islamic practice.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No, my point was that there is nothing about an arsehole, not their race, colour, culture, gender, sex, sexual orientation, life experience, state of inebriation, etc, that gives them a pass on being called one.

Yes that was your point and I said I agreed with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Ah, okay.  Sometimes these arguments come down to a very basic disagreement that no amount of arguing is going to change.

 

 

 

Yah. You can use s generalizations for negative or positive conclusions.

Terrorists kill the innocent to trigger a hateful reaction by you to all people the terrorist claims to represent and look like. They want you to do that so it can justify them saying to everyone they claim to represent that their group is hated and so justifies a terrorist defending them. Its human nature. If you are white and raped by a black man, your immediate reaction is to hate all black men after that.  On the other hand if a black man rescues a white person, its just as likely that white person now likes all black people after that. So the question comes down to what experiences or interactions with others will trigger our generalizations of others in their same category. I will be damned if a terrorist  or anyone manipulates how I go on to categorize anyone including terrorists.

This is why ironically while I do not embrace fundamentalist orthodox approaches to religions I agree with them when it comes to their central lesson which is to learn to use the  individual gift of being able to make decisions to decide whether we spend our lives searching how we create positive or negative consequences. 

Its why when someone presents something in black and white, all or nothing generalizations, I say move long.

How you use your free choice is your choice. I am not hear to preach other than to say its easy to point out what is bad or negative, real easy, too easy,

In specific context to this thread which has drifted way past its first initial generalized pronouncement,  I reject the premises as being so wide in generalization to render it inherently flawed in conclusion.

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rue said:

Terrorists kill the innocent to trigger a hateful reaction by you to all people the terrorist claims to represent and look like. They want you to do that so it can justify them saying to everyone they claim to represent that their group is hated and so justifies a terrorist defending them. Its human nature. If you are white and raped by a black man, your immediate reaction is to hate all black men after that.  On the other hand if a black man rescues a white person, its just as likely that white person now likes all black people after that. So the question comes down to what experiences or interactions with others will trigger our generalizations of others in their same category. I will be damned if a terrorist  or anyone manipulates how I go on to categorize anyone including terrorists.

I don't subscribe to that tho.   Terrorism is simply using military force without state sanction under international law and the laws of armed conflict.

Terrorists are not a monolith. Mooslambs are not a monolith.  The number of actual terrorists per capita is not a lot for a billion people.

Those terrorists do not all fight on the same side.   Some of those terrorists fight on our side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...