Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?), trying to make mass immigration mandatory?

[Father Heathen]

But in my traditionally Christian country I can wear miniskirt, fishnet stockings, boots and top and the Government protects my choice.
To dress that way.
So I guess that matters.

That's in spite of religious sentiment, not because of it. Such leniency came out due to waning religious influence.

 

[Left Coast]

Have you read their book?

I have. Have you read the Bible?

We're agreed, but how is that relevant?

If you're gonna judge billions of people as a monolith based on some things their holy book says, be consistent about it.

Stop putting words in my mouth, it's not a good look

I didn't. You're welcome to start a thread about how we should restrict Christian and Jewish immigration any time. Go on.

Do you understand that there are a few fundamental aspects of Islam that do not vary from Muslim to Muslim?

Like the Five Pillars? What are you talking about here that is relevant to immigration policy?

When you declare yourself to be a Muslim - which is a deliberate choice - that declaration has meaning. You seem to want that not to be true, but it IS true.

I know this is going to completely blow your mind - but no, that isn't exactly true. Many people are Muslims because it's all they know. It's what they were raised with and it's the water they swam in their whole lives. They risk rejection by their families if they defect publicly.

Religion is complicated. I know you don't want it to be complicated when it comes to Islam, but it still is.

I'm highly critical of those universal, fundamental aspects of Islam.

Which ones?

You're demonstrating an inability to think clearly. You MUST be able to separate the message from the messenger. To take a silly example, if Hitler agreed that E = mc2, that doesn't make it a bad idea.

Your bad ideas are bad all on their own. I just know where they come from, which is why I called it out. You're fighting a demon that isn't in this conversation except in your head because you're using a template, given to you by people like Peterson, that doesn't apply here.

We're talking about a "faith" that has almost two billion members. You keep telling me to talk to a few Muslims. How is that not advocating for putting individual "lived experience" ahead of data and evidence?

Direct observation and interaction with actual Muslims is data and evidence. Why is this so hard to understand? I suggested you go outside and talk to some real people because, well, some is better than zero. You can't learn everything about the world from the internet or reading a book out of context.

And again, I refer you back to my example of black and white swans. This really isn't that hard to grasp. It's not "woke." It's not neo-Marxist. It's common ****ing sense my guy.

Doh! But on the other hand, correlation sometimes does predict causation, did you know that?

Very good! And how does one scientifically determine whether a correlation is causal, and in which direction, and whether the relationship is mediated or moderated by other variables?

 

[icehorse]

So, denying people entry (or negatively judging their application) based on country of origin is necessary to determine the individual merit of immigrant applications.

Wow. That's straight-up ethno-nationalism.

The reality is that some profiling is done. It is ideal? Of course not, but it's a practical reality.

But theoretically, if the immigration office DID have infinite time, then no profiling would happen. Same with the TSA.

 

[icehorse]

No, that's not my opinion, but unsurprisingly, you're jumping to conclusions before asking. If you wonder why some people choose not to engage your posts, I can wager that part of it is lack of interest in spending so much time correcting misrepresentations of our views instead of being able to actually have a discussion.

Tell you what, let's BOTH commit to that standard

 

[icehorse]

I'm asking you to tell us what your beliefs are.

So, tell us. What are the "fundamental aspects of Islam" that apply to every single Muslim?

I'll give you a couple of hints, I think if you put your thinking cap on, you'll be able to come up with the answers!

There are two claims that are foundational to Islam:

One has to do with the nature and characteristics of the Quran
The other has to do with Muhammad

Go for it! You can do it!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The reality is that some profiling is done. It is ideal? Of course not, but it's a practical reality.

No, it isn't. Most countries don't judge immigration applications based on protected characteristics or the individual's origin. Your argument, that explicit ethno-nationalism is "a practical reality" is simply false.

But theoretically, if the immigration office DID have infinite time, then no profiling would happen. Same with the TSA.

Time isn't the issue. Human rights are. Again, as someone who works very closely with immigration in the UK, I can tell you with utmost confidence that "time" is not an issue when assessing individual cases for consideration. We don't jump to judging applicants based on religion or ethnicity purely for the sake of "saving time". Usually, things that would make someone explicitly ineligible for application are fairly obvious, and there is no sense whatsoever (in fact, it's explicitly against the principles the UK agreed to under the European Convention of Human Rights) to judge that application, wholly or in part, based on the ethnic origin, religion or country of origin of applicant.

 

[icehorse]

I haven't seen any evidence that the inherently prejudiced practice of country-based profiling is necessary. If anything, many terrorist attacks have been carried out by people who would pass the arbitrary and tribalistic checks that such profiling would include.

Take your findings to the department of immigration, I'm sure they'll be relieved

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'll give you a couple of hints, I think if you put your thinking cap on, you'll be able to come up with the answers!

There are two claims that are foundational to Islam:

One has to do with the nature and characteristics of the Quran
The other has to do with Muhammad

Go for it! You can do it!

How about you just state it instead of pretending you know more than you actually do.

Also, watch your tone. You are in no position to speak down to anyone.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Tell you what, let's BOTH commit to that standard

It would be helpful if you would actually adopt a standard yourself and make that clear, instead of constantly shifting and hiding your explicit beliefs behind vague rhetoric, innuendos, and a pathological inability to answer basic questions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Take your findings to the department of immigration, I'm sure they'll be relieved

As far as I know, no country in the developed world counts marks against immigration applicants solely based on an assumption that birthplace and the safety profile of the applicant are tied. They still assess applications individually.

Also, your response doesn't address any of the problems with the prejudiced idea that country-based profiling should be normalized.

 

[icehorse]

I have. Have you read the Bible?

I've read the Quran cover to cover - what a mind numbing, super-repetitive slog that was!

I've read bits of the bible - mostly the bits seen to be the worst. But again, how is the bible relevant?

If you're gonna judge billions of people as a monolith based on some things their holy book says, be consistent about it.

The core tenets of Islam are far more universally held by Muslims the the core tenets of Christianity are held by Christians.

But again, why is this relevant? Sometimes we criticize Islam, other times Christianity, other times the oligarchy, and so on. Why on earth do we have to criticize them all at once?

I know this is going to completely blow your mind - but no, that isn't exactly true. Many people are Muslims because it's all they know. It's what they were raised with and it's the water they swam in their whole lives. They risk rejection by their families if they defect publicly.

Religion is complicated. I know you don't want it to be complicated when it comes to Islam, but it still is.

I think you're making my case for me. I agree. IMO to be born into an Islamic culture is to start life with an anchor. If you REALLY CARE about people, why are you so willing to allow that legacy to go uncriticized?

Your bad ideas are bad all on their own.

I haven't seen demonstrated that my ideas are bad.

But it does seem that yours came from some woke source.

Direct observation and interaction with actual Muslims is data and evidence. Why is this so hard to understand? I suggested you go outside and talk to some real people because, well, some is better than zero. You can't learn everything about the world from the internet or reading a book out of context

Even if I devoted my life to talking to individuals, the sample size would be meaningless, the amount of data collected would be meaningless.

Instead, I choose to take Muslims at their word, perhaps you should as well. To declare yourself a Muslim HAS MEANING, and it has consequences. You seem to be suggesting that we use the soft bigotry of low expectations. I know that's not a new phrase, but the shoe appears to continue to fit your argument.

And again, I refer you back to my example of black and white swans.

Sorry, I missed that. Was that in this thread?

Very good! And how does one scientifically determine whether a correlation is causal, and in which direction, and whether the relationship is mediated or moderated by other variables?

I know common sense is often the enemy of the woke, but here goes: If I look at a map of the world that shows which countries are Muslim majority, my common sense tells me that those countries would be less safe for young women to visit than other countries. Is that a generalization? You betcha, but the stats on assaults would bear out that common sense.

 

[icehorse]

Most countries don't judge immigration applications based on protected characteristics or the individual's origin. Your argument, that explicit ethno-nationalism is "a practical reality" is simply false.

I've read the actual immigration policies, and I think you're just wrong.

Time isn't the issue. Human rights are. Again, as someone who works very closely with immigration in the UK, I can tell you with utmost confidence that "time" is not an issue when assessing individual cases for consideration. Usually, things that would make someone explicitly ineligible for application are fairly obvious, and there is no sense whatsoever (in fact, it's explicitly against the principles the UK agreed to under the European Convention of Human Rights) to judge that application, wholly or in part, based on the ethnic origin, religion or country of origin of applicant.

How many hours is devoted to assessing each application? Remember that MILLIONS of Muslims have immigrated to the UK in recent decades. Are you saying that hundreds of millions of hours have been devoted to assessing every applicant?

It would be helpful if you would actually adopt a standard yourself and make that clear, instead of constantly shifting and hiding your explicit beliefs behind vague rhetoric, innuendos, and a pathological inability to answer basic questions.

Strong words, care to back them up.

And BTW, you still haven't answered the Islam 101 quiz.

 

[icehorse]

How about you just state it instead of pretending you know more than you actually do.

Also, watch your tone. You are in no position to speak down to anyone.

And you are? Please take a look at your post #149 and then tell me about tone, ffs.

 

[icehorse]

As far as I know, no country in the developed world counts marks against immigration applicants solely based on an assumption that birthplace and the safety profile of the applicant are tied. They still assess applications individually.

Also, your response doesn't address any of the problems with the prejudiced idea that country-based profiling should be normalized.

I didn't say solely, I said it was a marker, as it is with the TSA.

And again, in an ideal world I agree. But profiling happens, it's just a reality.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I didn't say solely, I said it was a marker, as it is with the TSA.

Unless you can provide robust statistical evidence linking people from certain countries to significantly higher crime rates, no, it's not even a "marker." It's just an assumption based on preconceived notions about people from certain countries and followers of certain religions.

And again, in an ideal world I agree. But profiling happens, it's just a reality.

You keep talking about a perceived necessity for "reform" of Islam. The vast majority of ex-Muslims from countries that record religion in official documents have Islam listed as their religion and can't change it, at least not without serious risk to their safety or even their lives. With that in mind, how would your proposed approach distinguish between an ex-Muslim secularist and a hardline Islamist? Asking both of them a set of questions wouldn't work either, since people could just lie about their beliefs. So what should immigration authorities do?

 

[Revoltingest]

I've read the Quran cover to cover - what a mind numbing, super-repetitive slog that was!

I've read bits of the bible - mostly the bits seen to be the worst. But again, how is the bible relevant?

Both inspire people to hideous violence against innocents.
If recognized in one, then it should be so with the other.

 

[Left Coast]

I've read the Quran cover to cover - what a mind numbing, super-repetitive slog that was!

I've read bits of the bible - mostly the bits seen to be the worst. But again, how is the bible relevant?

I already explained this to you. Go back.

The core tenets of Islam are far more universally held by Muslims the the core tenets of Christianity are held by Christians.

That makes no sense. Think for two seconds.

Meanwhile, what core tenets of Islam are you talking about?

But again, why is this relevant? Sometimes we criticize Islam, other times Christianity, other times the oligarchy, and so on. Why on earth do we have to criticize them all at once?

This isn't my, or your, first rodeo. Your criticism of Islam is outsized. Your desire to discriminate against them is unique.

I think you're making my case for me. I agree. IMO to be born into an Islamic culture is to start life with an anchor. If you REALLY CARE about people, why are you so willing to allow that legacy to go uncriticized?

I didn't say we shouldn't criticize Islam. I said we shouldn't make discriminatory immigration policies based on the ignorant assumption that all Muslims are wife beaters or whatever nonsense.

I haven't seen demonstrated that my ideas are bad.

Go back and reread then.

But it does seem that yours came from some woke source.

Another example of you applying the wrong template to understanding the conversation. But you keep doing it.

Even if I devoted my life to talking to individuals, the sample size would be meaningless, the amount of data collected would be meaningless.

This is silly. It's like you are straining not to understand the point.

Instead, I choose to take Muslims at their word, perhaps you should as well. To declare yourself a Muslim HAS MEANING, and it has consequences. You seem to be suggesting that we use the soft bigotry of low expectations. I know that's not a new phrase, but the shoe appears to continue to fit your argument.

Another parroted phrase from your gurus that has no application here.

Sorry, I missed that. Was that in this thread?

It was. Just a couple replies ago. Go back and read.

I know common sense is often the enemy of the woke,

Another parroted buzzword. Will you stop?

but here goes: If I look at a map of the world that shows which countries are Muslim majority, my common sense tells me that those countries would be less safe for young women to visit than other countries. Is that a generalization? You betcha, but the stats on assaults would bear out that common sense.

Yet you don't want to let young women leave those countries to live in a freer society. If you actually cared about them, you'd stop cheering on discrimination against them.

 

[flowerpower]

What are some examples of this? For instance, where should one draw the line between necessary or valid criticism of certain cultural elements—such as ethnic supremacism and colonialist attitudes, which have indeed been present in some European and non-European cultures at various points in history—and "toxic deconstructionism"?

I'm not a supporter of unchecked immigration, but most people don't seem to support that either. What I think would be an extreme reaction would be to ban all immigration from certain countries or religious groups to address a real or perceived threat to the social fabric of a given country or region. There's a large spectrum of possible solutions between the two extremes of "take in as many immigrants as the country's resources can withstand" and "ban all immigration from Muslim countries."

I appreciate this reply. Otherwise it's just me whining about stuff I deep down know is not really that big of a deal.

I personally grew up in an extremely multiculturalist country (to the point where it was actually stated as a federal government policy or initiative to ensure that mass immigration was both celebrated and that indigenous peoples were at least acknowledged as traditional custodians of the land (white man's guilt translated into government policy which had been going on for decades at this point).

I'm still relatively young - and I can specifically remember that my late 90s / early 2000s primary school mandatory curriculum was heavy with teaching social justice (it was actually explicitly stated in paperwork which what intended to inform our parents about what we were learning, which I remember totally enraged my Central European immigrant father). I can remember us kids being forced not only to learn basic history relevant to our European heritage (which I don't entirely disagree with - but emphasis on the Nazis as being the apex of all human evil was, what I later understood a little rich and somewhat inappropriate for primary school kids who don't fully grasp what was actually going on with that regime and a total neglect of any kind of teaching of the unmitigated horrors of communism, African dictatorships, hundreds of years of Muslim brutality etc).

I can recall silly exercises such as writing apology letters to hypothetic indigenous peoples in our otherwise all-white/European ancestry school for the evils that we supposedly continue to inflict upon them with our inherent ignorance of their culture that our ancestors spent 200 years destroying and continuing to destroy with our mere presence. There were also a lot of really weird things they put us up to including but not limited to learning traditional customs and practices of indigenous people. For a 7 year old child, it was really confusing for me - then high school kind of doubled down on the whole thing and elaborated on why it was all necessary, and taught rabidly, against all forms of racism and xenophobia - we were in the wake of 9/11 and a lot of serious Islamophobia was taking place in our society (again - I agree that it was well intentioned, racism and xenophobia are horrible and need to be discouraged, but something about the whole process seemed run along the lines of propagandistic political indoctrination rather than teaching us history and critical thinking skills alongside it - there was a clear and obvious agenda as far as I'm concerned).

You flash forward a decade or so, and I find my friends and peers realizing that their BA Degrees in Theatre and Dramatic Arts didn't exactly pay off the way they had hoped and decide to immerse themselves in disciplines such as Social Work which is rich with extreme left-wing ideological anti-white racism (among other things) - several of my friends found themselves committing social suicide by ranting about what "stupid idiotic little white girls" they were who would never truly understand other cultures and would always be a part of the problem simply for existing - this typically had adverse consequences for their mental health, which I observed deteriorate as they alienated more well adjusted people in their lives in favor of engaging in a kind of psycho-political meltdown that left them with not much more than a self-loathing disposition which was unnecessary and baseless and a credential or two in which they could perpetuate the same hatred towards themselves and other European descendants through their social work and careers in immigration. I can't help but feel that my generation got pretty much brainwashed by our society and culture into hating ourselves by our politicians, media and education system. Very unfairly too. So much misinterpretation of even the propaganda and agenda took place as well - such as friends of mine becoming forever embittered by the understanding that they were apparently being taught that, "because you're white and have a European heritage, it means you automatically have no valid culture - just a toxic one that needs to be deconstructed for the greater good" - a misunderstanding of course, but you can probably see the problem that I'm trying to convey here.

I know this post is a pretty anecdotal reply and I'm writing it at 4 in the morning and it probably it's the best (or most elaborate) representation of what I was trying to say, but I felt that you posed some good post questions and input and that it warranted a timely reply.

Sorry if this post sucks lol.

 

[icehorse]

Both inspire people to hideous violence against innocents.
If recognized in one, then it should be so with the other.

I recognize it in both. And I'm sure there could be good discussions in which both are considered. But this thread is about Islam and the Quran.

 

[icehorse]

You keep talking about a perceived necessity for "reform" of Islam. The vast majority of ex-Muslims from countries that record religion in official documents have Islam listed as their religion and can't change it, at least not without serious risk to their safety or even their lives. With that in mind, how would your proposed approach distinguish between an ex-Muslim secularist and a hardline Islamist? Asking both of them a set of questions wouldn't work either, since people could just lie about their beliefs. So what should immigration authorities do?

It's physically risky to be an apostate from Islam. Hmmm. Don't you think that's a problem? Don't you think that kinds of makes my case for me? Why would I want to let people who hold such a violent ideology enter my society?

So moderate Muslims have to reform Islam. What other choices do you see?

Again, IMMIGRATION IS NOT A RIGHT! it seems that you're implying that immigration should be fair? Why is that? do host countries have some moral obligation to accept immigrants? Why should a country be forced to accept applicants that - by your own admission - might be hard line Islamists?