When you say "influx", that means you've defined some borders and made laws about who can cross them.
Yes the USA and every other nation has defined those borders through laws that are currently on the books.
We all like those laws. We definitely like the laws that define who can cross and when and where.
This is not how humans have typically defined the world.
Yeah, that's how humans have typically defined the world.
Maybe you haven't heard about things called nations and borders.
That's how humans have typically defined the world for centuries now.
How you personally define your "world" is irrelevant Lausten. Except to you.
If you keep bringing up conversational topics based on "your world" or your bubble it gets real boring fast.
When you say "influx", that means you've defined some borders and made laws about who can cross them.
Yes the USA and every other nation has defined those borders through laws that are currently on the books.
We all like those laws. We definitely like the laws that define who can cross and when and where.
No we don't. In 1965 "we", that is the government when I was 5 years old, decided that "we" should have quotas on immigration. It changed the quota we have before that from 1952, which changed the quotas from 1924. Seems lots of people haven't liked the laws and actually did something to change them.
This is not how humans have typically defined the world.
Yeah, that's how humans have typically defined the world.
Maybe you haven't heard about things called nations and borders.
That's how humans have typically defined the world for centuries now.
How you personally define your "world" is irrelevant Lausten. Except to you.
If you keep bringing up conversational topics based on "your world" or your bubble it gets real boring fast.
I have heard of nations. The current model was defined in a treaty in 1638, and it was for Europe, not the whole world. So, since 17th century Europe, is what you call "typical". How typically ethoncentrist of you. I don't define the world, I look at history and understand that we are not the pinnacle. You're the one in a bubble.
What higher order of morality are you invoking when you use words like "influxes of immigrants." How is that a problem just by the nature of those definitions? Or is the problem something else?
Careful, you wouldn't want to risk being disingenuous and phony. You've already shown yourself to be wildly misinformed
and out of touch with reality.
Remember what you said:
I said it is not a good idea to address something by telling people what their beliefs are or telling them what they think, then telling them their thinking is wrong.
You're getting close to breaking your own ideals. :)
(Don't worry, I never expected you had anything serious to say. Honestly.)
No we don't. In 1965 "we", that is the government when I was 5 years old, decided that "we" should have quotas on immigration. It changed the quota we have before that from 1952, which changed the quotas from 1924. Seems lots of people haven't liked the laws and actually did something to change them.
What the hell are you talking about?
Immigration and customs laws have always changed. What's your point?
Quotas. Thank you.
Would you like to keep arguing my points for me?
Or do you want to keep trying to convince me that this isn't how humans have typically operated? :lol:
Keep trying that one! You aren't doing very good with immigration laws.
Of course, the definable problem is Islamic fanaticism.
Actually the definable problem is more broad than that.
It also involves massive influxes of immigrants and refugees in these recent years.
That was one of the main driving forces of the Brexit and the rise of nationalist populism in France, Holland, Eastern Europe and the US.
So it is an issue. A Definable Problem, It is being played out democratically by the voices of citizens in many countries in the West
and Eastern Europe....Poland, Hungary to name a couple.
The influx of immigrants and refugees and the real threat of islamic terrorism are two separate things.
Both equally relevant and important and politically connected for convenience.
And a convenience that is not wholly unwarranted.
Well, while an out of control and illegal flow of people across borders has been a problem in Europe and North America, the discussion of this thread began with "There is a perception, including guilty feeling, in the USA/West that our foreign policies are to be blamed for the acts of hatred, fanaticism and terrorism that are being committed in the world by people who identify themselves as Muslims. -------- human dignity and rights are trampled by Islamic fanaticism ------- it is not about hating Muslims; it is about seeking human dignity and rights for all kinds of people, including those that call themselves Muslims and perpetrate and accept acts of injustice and hatred due to their religious brainwash." So, Islamic fanaticism has been the main subject of this thread.
As for immigration, of course, it should be controlled by the host country as per its needs and laws, as long as there are different countries in the world. For my adoptive home country of the USA, which clearly has good human rights records within its borders, I would say people who are too fanatic about religions, to the point of having very little sense of justice and human rights, should not be welcome to this country. Even people who have been done great injustice to in their host countries, and need humanitarian help, should be evaluated in terms of whether they are willing to assimilate in this country, with respect for people without caring about religious kind of irrational affiliations, before they are allowed to come and stay in this country.
Bare assertions that the current restrictions on immigration are the right ones. That seems to be where this started and where it still is. Evidence given, âI went to a lectureâ, it said you are wrong, na-na na-na boo-boo.
Well, while an out of control and illegal flow of people across borders has been a problem in Europe and North America, the discussion of this thread began with "There is a perception, including guilty feeling, in the USA/West that our foreign policies are to be blamed for the acts of hatred, fanaticism and terrorism that are being committed in the world by people who identify themselves as Muslims. -------- human dignity and rights are trampled by Islamic fanaticism ------- it is not about hating Muslims; it is about seeking human dignity and rights for all kinds of people, including those that call themselves Muslims and perpetrate and accept acts of injustice and hatred due to their religious brainwash." So, Islamic fanaticism has been the main subject of this thread.
As for immigration, of course, it should be controlled by the host country as per its needs and laws, as long as there are different countries in the world. For my adoptive home country of the USA, which clearly has good human rights records within its borders, I would say people who are too fanatic about religions, to the point of having very little sense of justice and human rights, should not be welcome to this country. Even people who have been done great injustice to in their host countries, and need humanitarian help, should be evaluated in terms of whether they are willing to assimilate in this country, with respect for people without caring about religious kind of irrational affiliations, before they are allowed to come and stay in this country.
Refreshingly reasonable and rational commentary as usual Sam.
That "perception" in the US and the West that our foreign policies are to be blamed for refugees and immigrants is relevant as well.
So I feel the problem is connected. Especially in regards to assimilation.
And in many cases certain classes of these immigrants and refugees are being driven from their homes by islamic fanaticism and terror.
Sly, that Sam is. First, he restates that foreign policy doesnât somehow cause hatred and fanaticism. Sometimes thatâs true, like a policy of encouraging democracy and womenâs rights, but how about a policy of going door to door and throwing men out in the streets and ransacking their homes? Or just bombing them? How is that âseeking human dignity"? And the sly part, he slips right from there into âincluding" the âperpetrators", the âbrainwashed". Never too far from those words are you?
Then, as I said he does, âof course it should be controlled by the host country", like itâs perfectly normal to ban people from immigrating, regardless of why they are coming here. Then, again, âpeople who are too fanatic". Exactly who are you talking about? No need to answer. And then the vetting, always the vetting, as if that isnât already being done. Why is this presented as if it is a debate? We have, and will vet immigrants. Thatâs not the issue.
Sly, that Sam is. First, he restates that foreign policy doesnât somehow cause hatred and fanaticism. Sometimes thatâs true, like a policy of encouraging democracy and womenâs rights, but how about a policy of going door to door and throwing men out in the streets and ransacking their homes? Or just bombing them? How is that âseeking human dignity"? And the sly part, he slips right from there into âincluding" the âperpetrators", the âbrainwashed". Never too far from those words are you?
Then, as I said he does, âof course it should be controlled by the host country", like itâs perfectly normal to ban people from immigrating, regardless of why they are coming here. Then, again, âpeople who are too fanatic". Exactly who are you talking about? No need to answer. And then the vetting, always the vetting, as if that isnât already being done. Why is this presented as if it is a debate? We have, and will vet immigrants. Thatâs not the issue.
I think we have discussed this earlier in this thread. Ransacking and bombing people's home would obviously be horrible and would make people angry at the bombers and at the bombers' country. So, we can be sympathetic, if not supportive, to terrorist acts by some victims on the bombers' country. But the point that I have made or tried to make here is that the Islamic hatred and barbarity in the world have been more against innocent non-Muslims than against the big powers that do their military adventures, both justified and unjustified. If you are sympathetic to an Islamic State terrorist when he sneaks into the USA and detonates a bomb or drives a truck through a crowded market, I might understand your point. But how would you explain the fact that Islamic State fanatics have committed summary executions of Yazidi men and forced women of that tiny and weak non-Muslim community into sex-slavery? I have given quite a few examples of Islamic fanatic barbarity in many parts of the world, where clearly the atrocities were not against the West, they were against weak and non-violent non-Muslims, and against Muslims that the fanatics did not consider Muslim enough.
I am ignoring what you think of me as a person. Please discuss the issues.
Addressing your style of argument is not addressing you as a person.
Like the way you just changed the subject away from immigration or whether or not there is an agreed upon âtrueâ Islam.
Addressing your style of argument is not addressing you as a person.
Like the way you just changed the subject away from immigration or whether or not there is an agreed upon "true" Islam.
Again, the Koran is the principal book of Islam; the Hadits (books of Mohammad's advice/instructions) are also books of Islam. Deviating from the instructions in these books means deviating from Islam. Obviously humans have their intelligence, even when they are born in Muslim families; and thus, most Muslims deviate from Islam by varying degrees.
As for immigration of Muslims to the West, the problem is that most Muslims are too much into Islam, and are not ready to assimilate with the Western liberty. Even in the absence of the terrorism problem, the West would need to be careful about how many Muslims they take in and how fast, so that the Western liberty would not be spoiled. At the present level of their religiosity, Muslims would create a lot of problems for humanity anywhere they have a big presence.
The immigrant problem doesnât revolve around muslims per se, rather which muslims⌠out of tens of millions. I think the real problem is most middle easterners, as their extreme clannishness makes them totally incompatible with our society.
When you say "influx", that means you've defined some borders and made laws about who can cross them.
Yes the USA and every other nation has defined those borders through laws that are currently on the books.
We all like those laws. We definitely like the laws that define who can cross and when and where.
No we don't. In 1965 "we", that is the government when I was 5 years old, decided that "we" should have quotas on immigration. It changed the quota we have before that from 1952, which changed the quotas from 1924. Seems lots of people haven't liked the laws and actually did something to change them.
This is not how humans have typically defined the world.
Yeah, that's how humans have typically defined the world.
Maybe you haven't heard about things called nations and borders.
That's how humans have typically defined the world for centuries now.
How you personally define your "world" is irrelevant Lausten. Except to you.
If you keep bringing up conversational topics based on "your world" or your bubble it gets real boring fast.
I have heard of nations. The current model was defined in a treaty in 1638, and it was for Europe, not the whole world. So, since 17th century Europe, is what you call "typical". How typically ethoncentrist of you. I don't define the world, I look at history and understand that we are not the pinnacle. You're the one in a bubble.Right enough about westphalian nation states, but who cares? If others want to come here they have to respect our way of doing things.
Addressing your style of argument is not addressing you as a person.
Like the way you just changed the subject away from immigration or whether or not there is an agreed upon "true" Islam.
Again, the Koran is the principal book of Islam; the Hadits (books of Mohammad's advice/instructions) are also books of Islam. Deviating from the instructions in these books means deviating from Islam. Obviously humans have their intelligence, even when they are born in Muslim families; and thus, most Muslims deviate from Islam by varying degrees.
As for immigration of Muslims to the West, the problem is that most Muslims are too much into Islam, and are not ready to assimilate with the Western liberty. Even in the absence of the terrorism problem, the West would need to be careful about how many Muslims they take in and how fast, so that the Western liberty would not be spoiled. At the present level of their religiosity, Muslims would create a lot of problems for humanity anywhere they have a big presence.
How do you not know you are a bigot?
Right enough about westphalian nation states, but who cares? If others want to come here they have to respect our way of doing things.
That's why we have laws. Once people get here from anywhere, or if they are born here, they can't walk into churches and shot people they've never met. Pretty much all nations have a law like that. But you can't determine who those people are going to be, based on the books they read.
Again, the Koran is the principal book of Islam; the Hadits (books of Mohammad's advice/instructions) are also books of Islam. Deviating from the instructions in these books means deviating from Islam.
But you never explain who is deviating. Take anything as an example, or provide a methodology. Say hijabs: what verse says they should be worn, when they should be worn and how they should be designed, full body cover or just the head? face too? How did these mythical "true" Muslims determine that?
As for immigration of Muslims to the West, the problem is that most Muslims are too much into Islam, and are not ready to assimilate with the Western liberty. Even in the absence of the terrorism problem, the West would need to be careful about how many Muslims they take in and how fast, so that the Western liberty would not be spoiled. At the present level of their religiosity, Muslims would create a lot of problems for humanity anywhere they have a big presence.
Exactly. But we are learning this. Course corrections are being made.
Politically and culturally more and more Westerners are waking up.
Are you sure itâs us who should be worried about them? I wonder what itâs like from their perspective.
It lost a little in the downsizing, but you get the idea.
Are you sure it's us who should be worried about them? I wonder what it's like from their perspective.
It lost a little in the downsizing, but you get the idea.
Unfortunately what you call overthrow others call bringing American/Western values to savages.