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 21

post #301 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

I posted about a Protestant / evangelical pastor openly advocating for the state to execute gay people. You come back with your own personal experiences of Catholicism--and Christians who want to "pray the gay away." And you're going to complain about false equivalences?
P.S. - You apparently didn't learn very much about the nuances and complications of Christian typology (the conceptual mechanism whereby the New Testament fulfills / negates / aufhebungs the Hebrew Bible). That movement is not as clean and simple as you make it out to be and never has been (see: the Incident at Antioch). If you think I'm wrong about everything else in the world, trust me on this--it's kind of my wheelhouse.

It's not clean cut and simple but in that very case of Leviticus line about killing gays you should know better than me it is not something majority of christians sect deem as proper treatment of homosexuals, neither is stonning people for working on sabbath so cut the crap please.

some estimates say even between 4000 and 6000 homosexuals were executed in iran alone since 1979, there is no parrarel for Christian world for that alone. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/london-wikileaks/8305064/IRAN-UK-GRANTS-ASYLUM-TO-VICTIM-OF-TEHRAN-PERSECUTION-OF-GAYS-CITING-PUBLICITY.html

look up stats for situation of gay/trans people in Iraq/Pakistan
it's not close
post #302 of 1314
Homosexuality is outlawed in a number of African countries, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to execution. Some of these countries are majority Christian and justify anti-gay laws through appeals to Christianity. And American Christians have, in some cases, actively promoted this kind of legislation: http://www.thenation.com/article/its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa/

I don't know the numbers, but I'm guessing more (probably a lot more) gay people have been executed in Middle Eastern Muslim states than in Christian African ones. But that's a question of scale, not of wrongly comparing zealot apples to wingnut oranges. Please stop with your arguments by fiat ("no parrarel [sic--unless this is a racist Asian accent joke] for [sic--ditto] Christian world").

Should we enlarge our immigration quotas and bans to encompass not just Muslims (by the way, I don't think anyone in this thread has ever explained how we would do this on a nation-by-nation basis that would make any sense at all) but also Christians of a particular sort?
Edited by erictheobscure - 6/15/16 at 3:57pm
post #303 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Homosexuality is outlawed in a number of African countries, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to execution. Some of these countries are majority Christian and justify anti-gay laws through appeals to Christianity. And American Christians have, in some cases, actively promoted this kind of legislation: http://www.thenation.com/article/its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa/

I don't know the numbers, but I'm guessing more (probably a lot more) gay people have been executed in Middle Eastern Muslim states than in Christian African ones. But that's a question of scale, not of wrongly comparing zealot apples to wingnut oranges. Please stop with your arguments by fiat ("no parrarel [sic--unless this is a racist Asian accent joke] for [sic--ditto] Christian world").

Should we enlarge our immigration quotas and bans to encompass not just Muslims (by the way, I don't think anyone in this thread has ever explained how we would do this on a nation-by-nation basis that would make any sense at all) but also Christians of a particular sort?

Good guess, since there's NO christian country where legal punishment for homosexuality is death. African countries where you can get deaths sentence are Mauretania, Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria. All are muslim countries. Nigeria is 50/50 split muslim/christian but you can get death penalty only in provinces that introduced sharia.

I'd agree with ban on african christians... if they committed acts of terror in EU or USA in name of their religion or say shoot up a gay bar. But they have not. You have poor arguement here.

Anyway why we are talking again about problem B again? Anytime there's discussion about islam you just can't help but bring christianity into it, can't you?

Whenever muslims kill a bunch of people we talk about how bad christianity is. I have a lot of problems with christianity, but only an ignorant can put problems with gay hatred or terrorism in christian and muslim worlds on somewhat equal footing. Frankly this is predictable, disingenuous and tiresome.
Edited by wojt - 6/15/16 at 5:40pm
post #304 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Homosexuality is outlawed in a number of African countries, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to execution. Some of these countries are majority Christian and justify anti-gay laws through appeals to Christianity. And American Christians have, in some cases, actively promoted this kind of legislation: http://www.thenation.com/article/its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa/

I don't know the numbers, but I'm guessing more (probably a lot more) gay people have been executed in Middle Eastern Muslim states than in Christian African ones. But that's a question of scale, not of wrongly comparing zealot apples to wingnut oranges. Please stop with your arguments by fiat ("no parrarel [sic--unless this is a racist Asian accent joke] for [sic--ditto] Christian world").

Should we enlarge our immigration quotas and bans to encompass not just Muslims (by the way, I don't think anyone in this thread has ever explained how we would do this on a nation-by-nation basis that would make any sense at all) but also Christians of a particular sort?


We need to convert the islams to Christianity.
post #305 of 1314
Good luck with that.
post #306 of 1314
We need to introduce them to capitalism, show them the benifits of a nice 30 year intrest only morgtages and 18% credit cards. That'll keep down.
post #307 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

shift shift shift shift goalpost goalpost goalpost goalpost

BTW IIRC, the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Saudis and had visas. Should we stop giving out visas to people from Saudi Arabia? Also, some of the attackers met and coordinated in Malaysia (majority Muslim country). Should we stop giving out visas to Malaysians? Should we stop Malaysian immigration?

The biggest threat to American lives is McDonald's and Coca Cola. You should probably stop letting your feelings about furrners make you hysterical.

I'm not shifting anything. I said that Muslims were responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks, perhaps I should have noted that the scope of those attacks is part of my analysis, but I assumed that was obvious. Do you disagree with the idea that Muslims represent the largest terrorist threat?

If abortion bombers killed three people over the course of six bombings, by your logic they are more dangerous than 3,000 people being killed in a single attack on 9/11 because 6>1. Surely you aren't saying this, right?
post #308 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

Good guess, since there's NO christian country where legal punishment for homosexuality is death. African countries where you can get deaths sentence are Mauretania, Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria. All are muslim countries. Nigeria is 50/50 split muslim/christian but you can get death penalty only in provinces that introduced sharia.

I'd agree with ban on african christians... if they committed acts of terror in EU or USA in name of their religion or say shoot up a gay bar. But they have not. You have poor arguement here.

Anyway why we are talking again about problem B again? Anytime there's discussion about islam you just can't help but bring christianity into it, can't you?

Whenever muslims kill a bunch of people we talk about how bad christianity is. I have a lot of problems with christianity, but only an ignorant can put problems with gay hatred or terrorism in christian and muslim worlds on somewhat equal footing. Frankly this is predictable, disingenuous and tiresome.

Once again the logic of your argumentation crashes on the mountain of distinction between nations, groups and individuals. If the state of Sudan has a policy the USA disagrees with it may exert diplomatic pressure (say the aforementioned Carter ban on immigration + other assorted measures), this is usually done to change the existing policies the USA disagrees with and is, by definition, temporary although say the Cuban sanctions lasted for a long time.

Now if some Ugandan Christians commit an act of terror in the USA this isn't either a matter of of applying such diplomatic pressure or of banning all African Christians (guilt by association) but of banning/bringing to justice the specific criminals and their associates. This is something that is, of course, part of any state's arsenal of tricks, up to the legally dubious but often used prevention operations (i.e. targeted drone killings) the USA conducts in foreign countries such as Yemen.

However this is not your point of contention: you basically believe some cultures are, by definition, incompatible with US and EU culture (a culture anyone has yet to define in any meaningful way in this thread) and will bring social harm, from ghettos to full-on bloodshed. Things are a lot more complicated than you think though, using the specific example being discussed and relaying my anecdotal experience, I can tell you that hatred of homosexuals in various African countries is not heavily correlated with Islam, as most countries have a mix of Muslims and Christians, often in the same family. Ethnic groups could be another important data for such a analysis and they do not correlate with national borders cause Europeans drew those without caring much about such irrelevant details. In the end if I had to take a stance i'd say some of the most hardcore violent acts against LGBTQ people happen in predominantly Christian countries who may not outlaw homosexuality outright. Morocco is a gay vacation destination but Uganda has seen various LGBTQ leaders assassinated by mobs.
post #309 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

However this is not your point of contention: you basically believe some cultures are, by definition, incompatible with US and EU culture (a culture anyone has yet to define in any meaningful way in this thread) and will bring social harm, from ghettos to full-on bloodshed. Things are a lot more complicated than you think though, using the specific example being discussed and relaying my anecdotal experience[..]

yes, the gist of it
I'd like for multiculturalism to work, but i just don't think it does work very well in most instances, no all but most. That's the reason for my stance on big immigration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

, I can tell you that hatred of homosexuals in various African countries is not heavily correlated with Islam, as most countries have a mix of Muslims and Christians, often in the same family. Ethnic groups could be another important data for such a analysis and they do not correlate with national borders cause Europeans drew those without caring much about such irrelevant details. In the end if I had to take a stance i'd say some of the most hardcore violent acts against LGBTQ people happen in predominantly Christian countries who may not outlaw homosexuality outright. Morocco is a gay vacation destination but Uganda has seen various LGBTQ leaders assassinated by mobs.

I agree with you Africa is not clear cut case. Europe/NA vs Middle East is pretty obvious though.

To your point about sanctions/policy
It remains to be seen how much governments of countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan would care if their citizens were not able to get a USA's citizenship. Logically citizens of these countries could care a lot but governments don't seem to have that much to lose in this game. I'm not saying qouta system or ban on certain countries(nevermind now if it makes sense in the first place, and which exact countries) would have zero ramifications politically, but maybe you overstate level of importance it presents to governments of potentially banned countries.
Edited by wojt - 6/16/16 at 8:01am
post #310 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

yes, the gist of it
I'd like for multiculturalism to work, but i just don't think it does work very well in most instances, no all but most. That's the reason for my stance on big immigration.
I agree with you Africa is not clear cut case. Europe/NA vs Middle East is pretty obvious though.

To your point about sanctions/policy
It remains to be seen how much governments of countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan would care if their citizens were not able to get a USA's citizenship. Logically citizens of these countries could care a lot but governments don't seem to have that much to lose in this game. I'm not saying qouta system or ban on certain countries(nevermind now if it makes sense in the first place, and which exact countries) would have zero ramifications politically, but maybe you overstate level of importance it presents to governments of potentially banned countries.

The symbolic weight would be a diplomatic nuke and destroy the relationship with these countries, we're talking expulsions of ambassadors and severing of the diplomatic link, move to back-channel talks to solve the situation. BTW Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are both USA allies so tough luck. You're also aware that for many countries the immigrants in question are mostly accepted for humanitarian reasons (think Scandinavia) which would remain an exception unless something extremely weird happens.
post #311 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

yes, the gist of it
I'd like for multiculturalism to work, but i just don't think it does work very well in most instances, no all but most. That's the reason for my stance on big immigration.

USA and Canada are basically multicultural by definition, it is their constitutive nature. We're not talking Germany here, everyone is a mutt but Americans are recent mutts.
post #312 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

Anyway why we are talking again about problem B again? Anytime there's discussion about islam you just can't help but bring christianity into it, can't you?

Whenever muslims kill a bunch of people we talk about how bad christianity is. I have a lot of problems with christianity, but only an ignorant can put problems with gay hatred or terrorism in christian and muslim worlds on somewhat equal footing. Frankly this is predictable, disingenuous and tiresome.

I didn't bring up the example of the homophobic pastor in America --> anti-gay legislation in Christian Africa in isolation or out of nowhere. I brought it up in response to suited's remarks. He kept bringing up opinion polls that suggest that the majority of Afghan Muslims are for killing apostates. He cited this as an example of a dangerous idea that we need to keep out by banning Afghan Muslims (or is it all Muslims from every country--still no response to that basic question and how in god's name that would work). I had a number of problems with this appeal. 1) We haven't had a spat of killings of people who left Islam--that genuinely bad idea has so far not become a practical problem. 2) All of this is a response to the recent killing of gay men. So I brought up the example of the homophobic pastor in America for two reasons: 1) homophobia is more directly related to the recent massacre and 2) he's exhibiting a virulent idea that's already here but not from Islam.

As the conversation evolved, the shift from this pastor's remarks to anti-gay legislation in Christian Africa was motivated by something the pastor himself said: he was advocating for the state to execute gay people. *From the start* I asked if, for you anti-Muslim immigration types, the distinction between the virulent appeal to state violence was a significant one.
Edited by erictheobscure - 6/17/16 at 8:59pm
post #313 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

So I brought up the example of the homophobic pastor in America for two reasons: 1) homophobia is more directly related to the recent massacre

I posted a link on this earlier but just to reiterate, "[James Wesley Howell of Indiana] who police said was arrested as he headed toward the LA Pride festival with an arsenal of weapons is being held in a California jail with bail set at $2 million."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/california-west-hollywood-suspect-aresenal/index.html
post #314 of 1314
There are two points of disagreement running through the last few pages of this thread, and the larger Islamic immigration debate in general:

1. Whether it’s legal, historically precedented, and practical for the US to deny entry to a specific class of people.

2. Whether there is a large enough distinguishable difference between existing US society and Muslim society to warrant discriminating against the latter.

#1 is so obvious as to be self-evident. We acknowledge certain rights of visitors and non-citizens once they are within our borders, but there is nothing obligating our government to grant outsiders entry. And how could it be otherwise? Territorial sovereignty is the bedrock of the state, both in theory and historical practice.

The practicality of screening for Muslims (i.e. using country of origin as a proxy, or last names, or some kind of individual investigations, etc.) is the only argument that holds water under point #1 of disagreement. To which I would concede, sure, even the best methods will result in some false-positives and false-negatives. But those will be corner cases.

#2 is more interesting. People outraged by Trump’s proposal for a Muslim moratorium voice their objections in a legalistic frame (“the US cannot discriminate on the basis of religion!”) but their visceral disgust is really driven by Trump’s taboo violation in implying that tolerance and non-discrimination may not actually be the guiding principle of society to which all other principles are subordinated.

Non-discrimination was emerging as the US consensus in domestic relations around the time the Civil Rights Act passed. More mysterious to me is how it came to be applied to foreign cultures and codified in the 1965 Immigration Act. It’s certainly not the historical norm. Prior to WW2, the idea of Western powers allowing substantial Islamic (and third-world in general) immigration would have been seen as utterly absurd.

To Fuuma’s point— that no one here has bothered to articulate ‘American culture’— Islam has suddenly become acceptable in the US and Europe because there is no agreed-upon social identify against which to contrast it. Pre-WW2 these countries identified strongly as Christian, white, nationalist, with some enlightenment-inspired optimism. None of those qualities are currently in fashion, to put it mildly. If any national identify was pushed during my K-12 education in the 1990s, it was some vague idea of multicultural universalism. And in that frame, Islam is a positive good.

The problem with multicult universalism, as has been pointed out by Pio, Suited and others, is that Muslims overwhelmingly do not buy into it. Pew opinion polls are enough to convince me I do not want the median-belief Muslim man in close proximity to my daughters.

But what if-- as suggested by Eric, Gib, and a few others-- that the US immigration system provides a high enough hurdle that we are skimming the crème of the crop who don’t share those beliefs? I’ll ignore for a second that US opinion polls exist, and they are not confidence building.. My problem is the Islamic doctrine itself. Even if these people tend to secularize (and plenty do not as evidenced by the count of hijabs and burkas I see on a daily basis) the Islamic belief system itself is a gravitational pole that is always going to draw a certain number of true-believers.

That belief system is frightening and incompatible with any world I want to live it. Islam sees itself in a permanent state of conflict with all non-Muslim societies, with the ultimate goal of subjugating all of humanity under sharia. Anyone identifying as Muslim, whether they are a radical jihadist or ignore 95% of sharia, advances the (explicitly stated) political/religious interests of Islam. That is why they don’t belong here unless they can credibly renounce that religion.
post #315 of 1314
Jesus fuck, no one is reading that shit. Five sentences tops. If you can't fucking make your point in that then your point is shit and no one cares anyway.
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