Europe aids an ocean of refugees, where's Islam's charity?

[MARCELLO]

Lives DO matter! I've said it before, I'll say it again: I think the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR), is a fantastic baseline for how humans ought to treat one another. And we ought to be suspicious and vocal about anyone who acts to undermine these basic humane ideas. Any dispute with that?

Certainly no dispute against what you said,but think twice , these are the people in need. You and I never know what it feels like to be a refugee,though ,I perfectly agree that refugees are none of your business. But still we should care the ones in need.

 

[icehorse]

Certainly no dispute against what you said,but think twice , these are the people in need. You and I never know what it feels like to be a refugee,though ,I perfectly agree that refugees are none of your business. But still we should care the ones in need.

I agree, but the current solution is a temporary band-aid at best. We need to be discussing compassionate, long-term solutions.

 

[MARCELLO]

I agree, but the current solution is a temporary band-aid at best. We need to be discussing compassionate, long-term solutions.

ı have my job in finance,I do know what temporarily solutions mean. But then comes public relations,why don't you feel and understand that this is the day for Europeans that they pay for pennies and get millions in return? Believe me,financially it is no way I am wrong. Emotionally, well yes it is all about me.

 

[sun rise]

Shadow Wolf's charts from earlier in this thread are one source...



And don't you think that the idea that they might not have a choice, would be good reason to criticize the ideology?

All societies restrict choice in one form or another. The US constitution restricts choice by defining certain rules. Most political fights in the USA are about who gets to choose for whom. Here it's about economic choices. And yes our ideologies can and should be criticized. Also here women are not allowed to walk around topless and men bottomless at least usually although there are notable exceptions. And the right is trying to remove women's right to choose abortion.

So to me we're in the better vs worse and not good vs evil realm. The US is better because we have more freedom and our ability to choose our leaders is amongst the best. The biggest reason I'm a patriot in that sense is that we're forward looking and have a flexible society which can grow and change.

When a society becomes locked in and rigid and tries to ensure that the rules of 1300 years ago stay in force for a million years, it not only crosses the line to worse but also won't last.

 

[sun rise]

I agree, but the current solution is a temporary band-aid at best. We need to be discussing compassionate, long-term solutions.

That's where the problem comes in. The true long term solution is that the areas of conflict and repression need to change but we can't force that change upon them.

 

[Quagmire]

Shadow Wolf's charts from earlier in this thread are one source...



And don't you think that the idea that they might not have a choice, would be good reason to criticize the ideology?

One should learn the difference between criticism and propaganda.

And don't you think that the habit of trying to mask your inaccuracies by asking loaded and only vaguely related questions is a bit transparent?

 

[icehorse]

ı have my job in finance,I do know what temporarily solutions mean. But then comes public relations,why don't you feel and understand that this is the day for Europeans that they pay for pennies and get millions in return? Believe me,financially it is no way I am wrong. Emotionally, well yes it is all about me.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your answer. Can you state it a different way? thanks!

 

[icehorse]

That's where the problem comes in. The true long term solution is that the areas of conflict and repression need to change but we can't force that change upon them.

I don't think that there are any easy answers here. But it's clearly the case that Europe cannot remain viable if it accepts an unending stream of refugees. So I understand the compassion behind the idea that "we can't force change upon them". But at the same time, they're asking us to bail them out. Why can't change be a reasonable part o that equation?

 

[icehorse]

One should learn the difference between criticism and propaganda.

And don't you think that the habit of trying to mask your inaccuracies by asking loaded and only vaguely related questions is a bit transparent?

You're long on insults and short on data. What part of the data that Shadow Wolf presented do you take issue with? Or are working from a data-free zone today?

 

[Quagmire]

You're long on insults and short on data. What part of the data that Shadow Wolf presented do you take issue with? Or are working from a data-free zone today?

I've noticed you have this habit of changing the subject whenever you're proven wrong. That's not an insult, it's an observation.

If you don't like having your positions held up to scrutiny, what are you doing posting them in a debate forum?

 

[icehorse]

I've noticed you have this habit of changing the subject whenever you're proven wrong. That's not an insult, it's an observation.

If you don't like having your positions held up to scrutiny, what are you doing posting them in a debate forum?

Point out where I've done that, because I've noticed that you've ignored data a few times in this thread.

So, I will say that I revised the OP to zero in on wealthy OPEC nations. Did you notice that I was quite open about making that revision? That's not changing the subject, that's getting new data, acknowledging the data, and revising a claim.

 

[sun rise]

I don't think that there are any easy answers here. But it's clearly the case that Europe cannot remain viable if it accepts an unending stream of refugees. So I understand the compassion behind the idea that "we can't force change upon them". But at the same time, they're asking us to bail them out. Why can't change be a reasonable part o that equation?

There have been a few arguments that this refugee influx is just what Europe needs due to a demographic crisis such as Japan has in spades - average age getting older with fewer workers supporting more retired people. Europe's challenge is that it does not have the tradition of accepting refugees like the US has nor a culture which supports growing diversity as the US has.

 

[sun rise]

Here's a link to a story covering my point in an earlier comment about the demographic issues in Europe with a lot of useful detail https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...untries-reject-refugees-and-others-love-them/

 

[Quagmire]

Point out where I've done that,

OK, a quick re-cap: in post #62 you seemed to be implying that the fact that a few countries under Sharia law have the word "Islamic" in their name, that their policies and attitudes should be seen as representative of Islam as a whole.
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424486

In my response in post #68, I tried to point out that a lot of nations have misleading adjectives in their titles: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424891

Your response to that in post #69 was to "rate" my example rather than respond to it or attempt to rebut it, followed quickly by a completely irrelevant (and at least slightly loaded) question which you proceeded to answer on your own, none of which in any way addressed the point of my post.

#71 At that point I figured, "OK, if we're going to play musical chairs I might as well get in the dance and see if I can try to slip my point in again during the guitar solo" http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424951

And, miracle of miracles, you went from what appeared to be an across-the-board implication of all Muslims to letting an entire 2/3rds off the hook:

#74 http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424985

Which I figured was progress, but still a bit of an unfair exaggeration.

So, in post # 95 I pointed out that it's a bit misleading to assume that just because someone is living under a system that they must approve of and endorse it, and that all things considered you would have to cut your figure in half, for starters:

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-5#post-4427048

Instead of acknowledging any of that, you used it as a springboard for yet another diversionary and loaded question:
# 96 http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-5#post-4427078

In other words, this hasn't been a debate, it's been a game of hide and seek. And as much fun as that is, that isn't what this forum is for.

because I've noticed that you've ignored data a few times in this thread.

What data did I ignore?

So, I will say that I revised the OP to zero in on wealthy OPEC nations. Did you notice that I was quite open about making that revision? That's not changing the subject, that's getting new data, acknowledging the data, and revising a claim.

I must have missed that. Where did that happen?

 

[sun rise]

OK, a quick re-cap: in post #62 you seemed to be implying that the fact that a few countries under Sharia law have the word "Islamic" in their name, that their policies and attitudes should be seen as representative of Islam as a whole.
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424486

In my response in post #68, I tried to point out that a lot of nations have misleading adjectives in their titles: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424891

Your response to that in post #69 was to "rate" my example rather than respond to it or attempt to rebut it, followed quickly by a completely irrelevant (and at least slightly loaded) question which you proceeded to answer on your own, none of which in any way addressed the point of my post.

#71 At that point I figured, "OK, if we're going to play musical chairs I might as well get in the dance and see if I can try to slip my point in again during the guitar solo" http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424951

And, miracle of miracles, you went from what appeared to be an across-the-board implication of all Muslims to letting an entire 2/3rds off the hook:

#74 http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424985

Which I figured was progress, but still a bit of an unfair exaggeration.

So, in post # 95 I pointed out that it's a bit misleading to assume that just because someone is living under a system that they must approve of and endorse it, and that all things considered you would have to cut your figure in half, for starters:

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-5#post-4427048

Instead of acknowledging any of that, you used it as a springboard for yet another diversionary and loaded question:
# 96 http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-5#post-4427078

In other words, this hasn't been a debate, it's been a game of hide and seek. And as much fun as that is, that isn't what this forum is for.



What data did I ignore?



I must have missed that. Where did that happen?

I felt I should note that my discussion with icehorse here has been entirely appropriate for this forum and thread. We clearly have different viewpoints in some areas but that is the way the game is played.

 

[Quagmire]

I felt I should note that my discussion with icehorse here has been entirely appropriate for this forum and thread. We clearly have different viewpoints in some areas but that is the way the game is played.

Not sure why you felt it necessary to point that out.

Edit: when I said this

In other words, this hasn't been a debate, it's been a game of hide and seek. And as much fun as that is, that isn't what this forum is for.

I was speaking specifically about our exchange, not the whole thread.

 

[icehorse]

OK, a quick re-cap: in post #62 you seemed to be implying that the fact that a few countries under Sharia law have the word "Islamic" in their name, that their policies and attitudes should be seen as representative of Islam as a whole.
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424486

That was an inaccurate inference on your part, but let's assume it was my bad. Working from memory, I believe I listed those "as a start". There are many more examples if you need to see them.

In my response in post #68, I tried to point out that a lot of nations have misleading adjectives in their titles: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424891

Your response to that in post #69 was to "rate" my example rather than respond to it or attempt to rebut it, followed quickly by a completely irrelevant (and at least slightly loaded) question which you proceeded to answer on your own, none of which in any way addressed the point of my post

You found one counter example - to a claim I never made. Your response was a strawman.

Again, based on an earlier, inaccurate, inference on your part. (BTW, It's always fair to ask for clarification.) Also, at some point when do we reach the point of granting common knowledge? Is there ANY uncertainty in your mind that the three countries I listed (two with clues in their names), have governments that are heavily influenced by Sharia?

#71 At that point I figured, "OK, if we're going to play musical chairs I might as well get in the dance and see if I can try to slip my point in again during the guitar solo" http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424951

And, miracle of miracles, you went from what appeared to be an across-the-board implication of all Muslims to letting an entire 2/3rds off the hook:

Wow! You asked me if I thought every Muslim was in favor of Sharia... Really? Would you buy a car if only 1 in 3 crashed? Do you seriously think that for my argument to stand, I need 100% of Muslims? Presumably you don't think I need 100%. On the other hand, I'm inferring that you think 30% is insufficient. So can you tell me what the tipping point is, and how you arrived at that number?

#74 http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-4#post-4424985

Which I figured was progress, but still a bit of an unfair exaggeration.

So, in post # 95 I pointed out that it's a bit misleading to assume that just because someone is living under a system that they must approve of and endorse it, and that all things considered you would have to cut your figure in half, for starters:

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-5#post-4427048

Instead of acknowledging any of that, you used it as a springboard for yet another diversionary and loaded question:
# 96 http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...res-islams-charity.179863/page-5#post-4427078

In other words, this hasn't been a debate, it's been a game of hide and seek. And as much fun as that is, that isn't what this forum is for.

Quagmire, it strikes me that you put forth a series of fallacies and then were upset that I didn't take the bait and respond to them? In what way was your question (about whether some were living under duress), not a distraction from the main point?

What data did I ignore?

I must have missed that. Where did that happen?

I can only guess whether you ignored something by a lack of response - my bad. You did not respond to the series of bar charts nor did you respond to the world map. Both of which qualify as data AND good evidence.

 

[MARCELLO]

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your answer. Can you state it a different way? thanks!

Sorry,me neither, I fell drunk

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Any dispute with that?

The UN declaration, not only is it virtually unenforceable, it is incredibly Western-centric and can lead those with little knowledge or experience of non-Western cultures to feel their is a problem with certain cultures because they fail to live up to our Western ideals, even though there is really nothing wrong with those cultures. In fact, there is no shortage of examples of when our pro-Western ideals have severely infringed upon what we should respect as the customs and traditions of other cultures.

 

[icehorse]

The UN declaration, not only is it virtually unenforceable, it is incredibly Western-centric and can lead those with little knowledge or experience of non-Western cultures to feel their is a problem with certain cultures because they fail to live up to our Western ideals, even though there is really nothing wrong with those cultures. In fact, there is no shortage of examples of when our pro-Western ideals have severely infringed upon what we should respect as the customs and traditions of other cultures.

Can you give an example of "western-centric"? What comes to my mind is that it calls for freedom of religion and freedom from religion. In other words, it refutes the idea that apostasy is a crime. Is making apostasy a crime a cultural value we want to preserve? Are there other examples you have in mind?