or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread - Page 15

post #211 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

2) You keep asking, "What's so great about Afghan culture?" I'm sure you think this is some sort of compelling argument, but frankly it makes you sound like a smug preening dipshit.

It's a very logical question. Seeing how most of your posts are so emotionally driven im not surprised you dont see this.

There is no shortage of workers and overall europeans and east asians integrate better into society than most of the muslims, at least on average(that is even excluding threat of terrorism). You can see that in every european state. There's no major incentive for USA to keep importing people who are hard to assimiliate. There's little Syrians/Afgans can bring than nobody else can.
post #212 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Post office just issued a new stamp. Not even kidding.


Wow, the new 37 cent stamps are in?! (I think this design is several years old, check the back of one for my dried spit.)
post #213 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats View Post

Wow, the new 37 cent stamps are in?! (I think this design is several years old, check the back of one for my dried spit.)

As lucid as ever I see.
post #214 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

FYI: we currently have about 100,000 Afghani-Americans in this country. When's the last time you heard of an Afghan apostasy killing? (No seriously, when's the last time?) You wouldn't, say, be manufacturing fear and outrage (about a population you don't really care that much about) so you can turn the recent massacre into grist for your mill?

By my math, living here instead of Afghanistan, they're putting an additional 1.7 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, every single year. Don't you care about the earth at all?
post #215 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

It's a very logical question. Seeing how most of your posts are so emotionally driven im not surprised you dont see this.

Try reading for content. Sometimes I use bullet points, just for readers like you!
Quote:
There is no shortage of workers and overall europeans and east asians integrate better into society than most of the muslims, at least on average(that is even excluding threat of terrorism). You can see that in every european state. There's no major incentive for USA to keep importing people who are hard to assimiliate. There's little Syrians/Afgans can bring than nobody else can.

More argument by fiat. And the weaselly qualifiers "most of the muslims" and an appeal to some vague "average" (that exists only in your worldview) don't help.

Arguments like "most Muslims, you know, like most of them don't assimilate as well as East Asians" are convincing only among those who share your worldview. A worldview in which entire swaths of the global population can be lumped together under an appeal to common sense. Pro-tip: I'm an East Asian immigrant. There are massive differences in "assimilation" among different East Asian groups, as well as across different parts of the country.

What do you even mean by "most of the muslims?" As I posted in response to suited, you keep reducing "Muslim" (with empty qualifiers like "most") to some sort of locatable ethnic/national identity. Do you think Malaysian Muslims are poorly integrated in the U.S.? Indonesian Muslims? Chinese Muslims? I'm guessing in your mind, it's just obvious that "Muslim" = brown Middle Eastern dangerous person. (PS - do you think the U.S. should ban immigration from Jordan?)

This kind of sloppy casual thinking applied politically is precisely what people mean when they label you (or Kai, or suited) bigots. And instead of refining your arguments, you whine about how you're labeled bigots when you possibly couldn't be.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Here's a familiar point that's no less true for being familiar: guess who else believes Muslims are--or, at least should be--all unified and the same--i.e., extremely devout enemies of America? No really--just think about who is going around converting and/or killing Muslims who don't want to join a single, global Islamic Caliphate that will be an enemy of the West? No really--keep thinking really hard about it.
post #216 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

If it's confirmed that he was actually gay, I'm very, very curious to see how that shapes the commentary going forward.

As we've seen in this thread, it won't matter to some. Whatever details might emerge, it makes no difference; all that matters is that his parents are Muslims from Afghanistan. The killer's connection to ISIS or some other group could be telekinetic and it would suffice. As long as it makes, in some the way, the dream of a war with Islam and Muslims a reality. The irony is that this dream itself is religiously/ideologically motivated.
post #217 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by satrorianogreco View Post

But let me guess whoever attacks gays is gay. Keep on repetting same political fallacy. Im sure you know


Retard, his ex-wife says he's gay. He had been visiting the club for over two years. A fellow male student says Omar Retard asked him out.

He was fucking gay as gay gets.
post #218 of 1314
post #219 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

1) You keep repeating that 79% number as if it's decisive proof of a practical threat. Even given the imperfections of any such opinion poll, it's absolutely true that such a belief is alarming. That's a shitty form of fundamentalism. But fortunately, beliefs don't always correlate directly to action.

When 79%, or in some cases nearly 100% of a population believes in a dangerous ideology, it would require an incredible amount of denial to believe that nothing bad is going to happen by bringing them in, especially when bad things have already happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

(A shockingly high number of Americans believe in shit like guardian angels

Totally valid point. Believing in guardian angels is just as dangerous as believing that your neighbor should be murdered if he leaves your religion. You've won this round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

FYI: we currently have about 100,000 Afghani-Americans in this country. When's the last time you heard of an Afghan apostasy killing? (No seriously, when's the last time?)

The son of an Afghan immigrant murdered 50 people at a night club a few days ago. Can we use that as a substitute? That wouldn't have happened if his crazy father didn't immigrate here from Afghanistan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

2) You keep asking, "What's so great about Afghan culture?" I'm sure you think this is some sort of compelling argument, but frankly it makes you sound like a smug preening dipshit.

It's too bad we didn't have intellectuals like you around in the 40's to teach us simpletons why common sense doesn't apply. We could have defeated the ideology of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan without storming beaches and dropping bombs. The kumbayah brigade could have replaced the 1st Infantry division. Can you imagine what the world would look like today if we took your approach against those threats?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Many if not most cultural contributions don't sound impressive when enumerated. Just imagine the 1800s version of suited asking, "What does America get by letting in those dangerous Irish Catholics? Boiled cabbage? Some folk music?"

Did Irish Catholics embrace the same radical concepts? I'm not asking if they embraced anything that someone might have thought was weird or odd - did 79% of them think you should be murdered, literally put to death by the state, if you decided not to be Catholic any longer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I don't support using country of origin or religion as a metric for immigration. 

Technically we aren't using their religion, we are using the ideas embraced by that religion. If any other religion supported those radical ideas, I'd be in favor of keeping them out, too.
post #220 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:

From the document:
Quote:
While most American Muslims adhere to a strict Abrahamic morality, the Quran is clear that its injunctions apply only to Muslims who choose to follow them: “There is absolutely no compulsion in religion.”

What injunctions would those be?
post #221 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Thank you for this characteristically thoughtful and helpful contribution.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

AL SHARPTON


@erictheobtuse, Here is an eloquent statement from your Boy. I wonder who wrote it for him?

Don’t Be An Accomplice To Terrorism
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The nation is mourning once again; senseless violence has again taken innocent lives, ripped families apart and left us with many unanswered questions. As we grieve and try to comprehend the incomprehensible, it is important that we remain united and not fall into the trap of division and hatred. Homophobia and Islamophobia are twin partners to terrorism. As information is slowly being revealed in Orlando, what we are witnessing is a blatant act of homophobia and evil in its worst form. But what is also transpiring in the aftermath of this tragedy is a knee-jerk reaction to blame Islam and Muslims.



http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/dont-be-an-accomplice-to_b_10441774.html?1465839176=
post #222 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Retard, his ex-wife says he's gay. He had been visiting the club for over two years. A fellow male student says Omar Retard asked him out.

He was fucking gay as gay gets.

As Christopher says to Tony, while talking of Vito possibly being Gay,

"So do we have to see him taking it up the................."

post #223 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

When 79%, or in some cases nearly 100% of a population believes in a dangerous ideology, it would require an incredible amount of denial to believe that nothing bad is going to happen by bringing them in, especially when bad things have already happened.

Totally valid point. Believing in guardian angels is just as dangerous as believing that your neighbor should be murdered if he leaves your religion. You've won this round.

The son of an Afghan immigrant murdered 50 people at a night club a few days ago. Can we use that as a substitute? That wouldn't have happened if his crazy father didn't immigrate here from Afghanistan.

It's too bad we didn't have intellectuals like you around in the 40's to teach us simpletons why common sense doesn't apply. We could have defeated the ideology of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan without storming beaches and dropping bombs. The kumbayah brigade could have replaced the 1st Infantry division. Can you imagine what the world would look like today if we took your approach against those threats?

Did Irish Catholics embrace the same radical concepts? I'm not asking if they embraced anything that someone might have thought was weird or odd - did 79% of them think you should be murdered, literally put to death by the state, if you decided not to be Catholic any longer?

Technically we aren't using their religion, we are using the ideas embraced by that religion. If any other religion supported those radical ideas, I'd be in favor of keeping them out, too.

1) The guardian angel thing was a jokey analogy. Pedantry time: in an analogy, the two things being compared don't have to be equal in magnitude as long as they share a logical structure. The logical structure here is: people believe or say they believe lots of things, but those things don't necessarily translate into action. We have laws regulating actions (like murder); when it comes to the very number that you keep citing, we haven't seen a spat of violence (Afghans killing people who leave the Muslim faith).

You're the one who slid--for the sake of your convenience--from the anti-gay massacre to views about those who leave the Muslim faith. If you want to ban any immigrants who believe gays are evil and deserve punishment (there's an ideology that could lead to evil!), well, be my guest. But that's not what you want to do. You want to ban Muslims. And that pathetic qualification in your very final point ("technically, we don't ban religion--we ban ideas") is risibly disingenuous.

2) Don't straw man me with your Kumbaya bullshit. I never advanced some sort of blanket pacifism. Added bonus: as a happy atheist, I don't really sing songs asking the Lord to drop by.

3) If you think Irish Catholics were just viewed as "weird" you should stop polishing your gun and go read some history. They were viewed as dangerous for centuries by Protestants. They were massacred for being political/religious insurgents. This history fed into suspicions about Catholics & Irish Catholics in America--even leading up to JFK's presidency. If this all seems quaint to you, it's because Irish Catholics have been accepted & assimilated--but only out of a history that was rough and rocky and featured plenty of animus and real violence.

The hope is that the same thing will happen to Muslim ___ immigrants (that blank being from various countries). The alternative is stupid, regressive, and doesn't seem promising: a reduction of the world into (post-)Christian West and the Muslim world.
Edited by erictheobscure - 6/14/16 at 4:32pm
post #224 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

I'm an East Asian immigrant. There are massive differences in "assimilation" among different East Asian groups, as well as across different parts of the country.


agree, iirc never said anything to contrary

Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

What do you even mean by "most of the muslims?" As I posted in response to suited, you keep reducing "Muslim" (with empty qualifiers like "most") to some sort of locatable ethnic/national identity.

Well that's a strawman. I merely stated on average muslims assimilate worse than europeans or let's say precisely non-muslim asians. For the sake of conversation I don't go out and single out each population and sect because it would take a book not a post. Obviously I have less problems with sufi muslims than with wahhabis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

I'm guessing in your mind, it's just obvious that "Muslim" = brown Middle Eastern dangerous person.

You guess wrong.
To be perfectly clear as an atheist I find religion like islam or christianty overall harmful irregardles wheter your brown or white, race has nothing to do with it. My opposition to for example admitting Syrian refugees stem from more practical reasons. I wont list them all here, but example could be in case of my country that they would have more difficulties learning language and getting job than an average ukrainian, another reason is that it would set a precedent where European Union could force my country to admit any number of migrants despite will of gov or people here. Third, there are ISIS members among them.

In case of USA where my mother lives(an immigrant too ha). I'd put quotas on immigration from muslim majority countries- at least some of them that produce biggest nr of terrorists like Pakistan for example. Overall example of UK, France, Denmark, Germany, Sweden shows that BIG muslim(before you say anyting I know I know #NotAll muslims!) population in those countries cause several problems with integration(self-segregation, islamism, jihadism, gettoisation, more sex crime). Problems country which is not in big need of workers like USA, simply doesn't need to invite over. I would not say ban all muslims(it can't be done anyway), but keep eye on their numbers and on how they assimilate to not repeat for example Sweden's or Germany's mistake.

To sum up, there is nothing they bring that other immigrants can't bring, so I'd prefer to spare ourselves some problems
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

This kind of sloppy casual thinking applied politically is precisely what people mean when they label you (or Kai, or suited) bigots. And instead of refining your arguments, you whine about how you're labeled bigots when you possibly couldn't be.

or you could give me courtesy of not trying to read my thoughts and put words in my mouth
post #225 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post
Technically we aren't using their religion, we are using the ideas embraced by that religion. If any other religion supported those radical ideas, I'd be in favor of keeping them out, too.

 

Should we round up all immigrants and immigrant decedents and lock them up in camps like we did to the Japanese?  Or should we only do it in the South?  I mean we have tens of thousands already here, and they're a dangerous menace!

 

Maybe we should kick out all kids of divorced parents seeing if you look at this list of mass shootings, most of the perpetrators were sons of divorced parents: http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread