Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is there a double standard on what is acceptable to criticize, and what is not?


For example, Christianity is widely criticized for policies against LGBT. Christianity is also routinely criticized against treatment of women.


Yet, if Islam is criticized for treatment of women (Even when the critic is, herself, a muslim), this gets dismissed as anti-Islamphobic at worst, and is generally ignored at best.



I understand both sides don't want to feed the "other" side ammo. Is that what is going on here? Defend Islam against anti-islamaphobes, even when criticism of Islam is warranted?

You are also leaving out Islam countries kill members of the LGBT community.

Funny thing is not all Islam and Christianity are equal. But you know, it's fun for people to generalise with limited knowledge and experience.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Funny thing is not all Islam and Christianity are equal. But you know, it's fun for people to generalise with limited knowledge and experience.

****ing bullshit!

Show me where Christianity preaches stoning a gay man, or tossing them off buildings in the last year is okay!

And show me where those Christians actually went through with it and the world said nothing!

It would be hard to argue that in the USA it's not more acceptable to bash Christians than it is Muslims.

Though really all one has to do is compare Jesus to Muhammad lol.

I dislike Christianity too, I dislike the power it wields. Yet it seems Christians are waaaaay more willing to change than Muslims are.

Originally posted by SquallX
****ing bullshit!

Show me where Christianity preaches stoning a gay man, or tossing them off buildings in the last year is okay!

And show me where those Christians actually went through with it and the world said nothing! didn't say they stoned, but bombs are going off in Northern Ireland again. You know Christian sect violence. Lots of other examples I could cite. Not all Christians, in fact the vast majority aren't into it. Not all Islam and Christianity are equal.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
didn't say they stoned, but bombs are going off in Northern Ireland again. You know Christian sect violence. Lots of other examples I could cite. Not all Christians, in fact the vast majority aren't into it. Not all Islam and Christianity are equal.

Overall in the world who is committing more terror attacks Christians or Islamists?

Originally posted by Surtur
Overall in the world who is committing more terror attacks Christians or Islamists? A point to attack Islam. A tiny percentage of either.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
A point to attack Islam. A tiny percentage of either.

Yeah the problem bro is that a tiny percentage of 1.5+ billion is still a disturbing amount.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
A point to attack Islam. A tiny percentage of either.

Who commits more terrorism in the world in the name of their God. Christians or Muslims?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Who commits more terrorism in the world in the name of their God. Christians or Muslims? Islam, but don't think they are the only ones. In the central African republic, Christian terrorists behead Muslims and kill all the Muslims in villages. I shit you not and there are a fair few other places worldwide. Most Christians and Muslims are not terrorists though.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Who commits more terrorism in the world in the name of their God. Christians or Muslims?

Just do the math on what .5% of 1.5 billion is. I'm just using .5% as a random very very low percentage.

Then ask yourself how many people it took to pull off 9/11.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just do the math on what .5% of 1.5 billion is. I'm just using .5% as a random very very low percentage.

Then ask yourself how many people it took to pull off 9/11.
*does maths*

Do you really think there's even 7.5million Islamic Jihadist? Do you realize how different the world would be, let alone the ME.

As you noted, 9/11 took how many. 19 hijackers. Add to that several others working as support to make sure they got what they needed, it's still probably well under 100; probably under 50. But you think there's 7.5million of these guys? Lolz.

Originally posted by Robtard
*does maths*

Do you really think there's even 7.5million Islamic Jihadist? Do you realize how different the world would be, let alone the ME.

As you noted, 9/11 took how many. 19 hijackers. Add to that several others working as support to make sure they got what they needed, it's still probably well under 100; probably under 50. But you think there's 7.5million of these guys? Lolz. it is the maths of a barking retard tbh.

That was his low estimate too

Originally posted by Robtard
That was his low estimate too I wonder how many Muslims he's met, usually when you meet people you stop being afraid of them.

Met? Who knows, I doubt many. Has gotten to know even marginally, I'd say zero, maybe one. That is generally the case, imo. As they cease to be imagined bogeyman in your mind and real people with real world problems like yourself.

His lowball of 7.5million is like the entire population of Hong Kong being Islamic Terrorist, with a few added.

I like how you got triggered, I said I pulled a random percentage lol. Legit said it in my post. Do better.

You said: "I'm just using .5% as a random very very low percentage."

Which is you suggesting that the real number is actually likely higher; even if you don't have an exact figure. Otherwise your posts has no real point.

Originally posted by Robtard
You said: "I'm just using .5% as a random very very low percentage."

Which is you suggesting that the real number is actually likely higher; even if you don't have an exact figure. Otherwise your posts has no real point.

No it's not me suggesting it at all, but hey you tried

Then your post had no real point, Surt. Language, buddy. How it works.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then your post had no real point, Surt. Language, buddy. How it works.

Most posts here have no point. KMC buddy. How it works.

Or you realized how ridiculous your point was after I did the maths and points so you're distancing yourself now. And, that.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah the problem bro is that a tiny percentage of 1.5+ billion is still a disturbing amount.

It's more than the tenants of the faith, a lot of it has to do with economics and education.

One of the reasons that Christianity is easy to pick on in the west is that we generally have a higher level of education and economic status.

Then when you look at the leadership of said groups based on those socioeconomic conditions you realize they are looking to achieve different results based on basic needs.

Originally posted by Robtard
Or you realized how ridiculous your point was after I did the maths and points so you're distancing yourself now. And, that.

No, but you tried.

Originally posted by Robtard
Or you realized how ridiculous your point was after I did the maths and points so you're distancing yourself now. And, that. So really Rob, same old Surtur shooting his foot off and pretending it didn't hurt.

Originally posted by cdtm
Is there a double standard on what is acceptable to criticize, and what is not?


For example, Christianity is widely criticized for policies against LGBT. Christianity is also routinely criticized against treatment of women.


Yet, if Islam is criticized for treatment of women (Even when the critic is, herself, a muslim), this gets dismissed as anti-Islamphobic at worst, and is generally ignored at best.



I understand both sides don't want to feed the "other" side ammo. Is that what is going on here? Defend Islam against anti-islamaphobes, even when criticism of Islam is warranted?

I believe this thread has very clearly answered your question.

Originally posted by Surtur
Most posts here have no point. KMC buddy. How it works. corrected
Originally posted by Surtur
Most of my posts here have no point. KMC buddy. What is work?

Originally posted by snowdragon
It's more than the tenants of the faith, a lot of it has to do with economics and education.

One of the reasons that Christianity is easy to pick on in the west is that we generally have a higher level of education and economic status.

Then when you look at the leadership of said groups based on those socioeconomic conditions you realize they are looking to achieve different results based on basic needs. Good Post

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Good Post


That's a really good sig.


Did you do that or did someone do it for you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a really good sig.


Did you do that or did someone do it for you? PVS did it mate.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
corrected

So true

The UN literally wanted to put sanction on Muslim countries that killed LGBT members, among other minorities. You know what countries were against that? Mostly conservative, traditionalist and/or Christian countries like Russia.

Clearly, it's not an issue that's being ignored. What is being ignored is how many Muslim activists there are who fight against homophobia and misogyny. People rarely talk about that.

If you want a real double standard: A Muslim woman wearing traditional Islamic clothes can often be the subject of discrimination, even police can force them to take their clothes off. Nobody does that to Christian women wearing traditional attire. mmm

LoL

Originally posted by MythLord
The UN literally wanted to put sanction on Muslim countries that killed LGBT members, among other minorities. You know what countries were against that? Mostly conservative, traditionalist and/or Christian countries like Russia.

Clearly, it's not an issue that's being ignored. What is being ignored is how many Muslim activists there are who fight against homophobia and misogyny. People rarely talk about that.

If you want a real double standard: A Muslim woman wearing traditional Islamic clothes can often be the subject of discrimination, even police can force them to take their clothes off. Nobody does that to Christian women wearing traditional attire. mmm Excellent post

BTW, what exactly do you consider traditional Christian attire?

Originally posted by Silent Master
BTW, what exactly do you consider traditional Christian attire? Depends on the type of Christian, Coptic Christians, orthodox Jews and Muslim women all cover their hair and dress very conservatively. Eastern Christianity, is very different African (which often incorporates local traditions), is very different to Christianity in the far East or South America. It's actually the same with Islam.

I mean, I'll be rather consistent here.

As a Christian who doesn't like being painted with a broad brush, I'd like to think that I at least have returned the same courtesy I would expect from others. I've probably slipped up a few times, I'm not gonna pretend I live up to my own standards.

I'd be quick to denounce the Westboro Baptist Church for their horseshit (I have), quick to criticize Christians who don't think teenagers should be taught about safe sex (I have), willing to welcome a Muslim into my home and smoke a bowl with them if they seem chill (I have).

I do my best to judge people on their own merits and character, be they my best friend's Muslim friend from high school, a Muslim woman who helped me check my textbook out at my college, left-wingers in my family, left-wingers in my religious group, people I engage in discussions with who tell me they're atheists. I don't just assume the muslims are terrorists/horrible bigots, don't just assume the lefties are psychotic, don't just assume someone I meet whose an atheist is an annoying fedora tipper whose gonna try their damnedest to convert me.


However it gets really sketchy for me when we're talking about Mass Migration from nations that have some rather serious widespread cultural problems. I'd say the same thing at the prospect of mass migration of Christians from the CAR, or less developed Christian countries in other parts of the world where gay people are executed. And if we brought Christians from such groups or countries into mine on mass and it lead to problems and people refused to talk about the culture clash for fear of being labeled racist or some other "ist", I'd take issue with that. I'm not saying don't let anyone in from those countries, I didn't support Trump's travel ban, but I am saying there needs to be actual serious screening and not importing massive cultural change into your country with no eye for the potential consequences.


And to keep this measure for measure, I know plenty of people who constantly shit on Christianity, I'm actually close friends with a few of them. I'm not gonna lie and say that doesn't emotionally provoke me or offend me, in fact that's perhaps the easiest way to emotionally offend me. I'm not going to pretend that makes them people of horrible moral character though, or put them on par with racists, otherwise I wouldn't be close friends with so many of them. Yes it can offend me, sometimes seriously, but as a wise man once said "in order to talk about anything important you have to risk being offensive."

They don't agree with my views as a Christian, and they don't owe those views any more respect or reverence than I owe their views as atheists, or that I owe Putinbot's views as a left-winger, or that he owes my views as a right-winger.

And yes, many of them unfairly paint with too broad a brush when it comes to Christians, and that is a fault, but virtually none of us here aren't guilty of painting with too broad a brush along ideological classifications. Most of the right-wingers here have done that with left-wingers, and most of the left-wingers here have done it with right-wingers.

It's a flaw, but not one I'd put on par with judging people on the basis of skin color, just getting swept up in emotion and making an unfair low resolution judgment of people on the basis of something that actually matters.

Now if a fedora tipping atheist starts talking about sending all religious people to reeducation camps or some shit or having the state teach atheism as the right perspective, then I'd start taking issue with that. But no generally fedora tipping atheists with an utter contempt for Christianity are not remotely the same as racists.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Depends on the type of Christian, Coptic Christians, orthodox Jews and Muslim women all cover their hair and dress very conservatively. Eastern Christianity, is very different African (which often incorporates local traditions), is very different to Christianity in the far East or South America. It's actually the same with Islam.

Which is why I asked what ml considered traditional Christian garb. I would also like to know which specific circumstances and articles of clothing are being talked about in regards to the police.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Which is why I asked what ml considered traditional Christian garb. I would also like to know which specific circumstances and articles of clothing are being talked about in regards to the police.

Fair enough, that's reasonable.

Killing people due to religion was also under the law the UN tried to pass. Countries like Russia, the US and Japan voted no, however, thus causing squabble and further delay on sanctions being implemented.

There's videos of edgelords coming up to and ripping a woman's hijabs off. Hell, I've seen it happen on the streets of Serbia a few times. And I'm not referring to the US specifically, just in general several countries that are dominantly Christian(like France, Belgium or Italy) have either made burkas, hijabs and other traditional headwear illegal or are pushing for it to happen.

Pretty sure it has.

The UN has denounced Iran's human rights violations for years now. SquallX is wrong.

I should note I'm not defending the inherently toxic aspects of Islam, like it's misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. I'm very much against all that.
I'm merely pointing out these aren't issues that are being ignored, and you can find hateful cvnts and tolerant dudes on both sides of this argument.

No one really is, as noted, it's what the individual takes out of their religion. Islam has many shit viewpoints though.

Misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia isn't something unique to Islam. Islam after all co-opted from Judaism and Christianity.

Islam may well be significantly more brutal in practice, but denying the causal link between two ideologies that advocate for a lack of critical thinking and which encourage you to base your morality on a imaginary dictator is cognitive dissonace at it's finest.

Originally posted by Robtard
No one really is, as noted, it's what the individual takes out of their religion. Islam has many shit viewpoints though.

Misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia isn't something unique to Islam. Islam after all co-opted from Judaism and Christianity.

Well That is a BIG PHAT PHUCKNG LIE!

I am glad there is a Hell.

Originally posted by Robtard
No one really is, as noted, it's what the individual takes out of their religion. Islam has many shit viewpoints though.

Misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia isn't something unique to Islam. Islam after all co-opted from Judaism and Christianity.

It isn't unique but it gets the gold medal for having the most followers and hence the winner of most likely to have more of those problems than any other religion by a large stretch.

Originally posted by Robtard
No one really is, as noted, it's what the individual takes out of their religion. Islam has many shit viewpoints though.

Misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia isn't something unique to Islam. Islam after all co-opted from Judaism and Christianity.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Islam may well be significantly more brutal in practice, but denying the causal link between two ideologies that advocate for a lack of critical thinking and which encourage you to base your morality on a imaginary dictator is cognitive dissonace at it's finest.

If critically thinking non theist's developed a universal framework of morality, that they self enforced among themselves, then you may have a point.

As is, critical thinking skills seem most often used to rationalize away bad behavior, reject universalism, and criticize enemies.


For all of religions faults, uniformity in the good parts is a net positive.

I've read some interesting articles that debunk the notion that mass migrations are going to be any kind of cultural threat to EU despite of what many nationalists try to sell.

Simply put, migrations tend to happen inside limited region except on the richest of the populations from each country. Those rich populations are the less likely to be fanatical and indulge into irrational cultism once they arrive to their "developped country of choice". Hardly the cultural war some are trying to sell us.

Originally posted by Bentley
I've read some interesting articles that debunk the notion that mass migrations are going to be any kind of cultural threat to EU despite of what many nationalists try to sell.

Simply put, migrations tend to happen inside limited region except on the richest of the populations from each country. Those rich populations are the less likely to be fanatical and indulge into irrational cultism once they arrive to their "developped country of choice". Hardly the cultural war some are trying to sell us. Good post!

Originally posted by cdtm
If critically thinking non theist's developed a universal framework of morality,
If anyone managed to develop a "universal frame work of morality", then you might have a point. But as there's no such thing as a "universal framework of morality" your defense of religious ideology is absolutely moronic.

Dictators form "universal frameworks", and those frameworks are based on fear not morality.

Originally posted by Bentley
I've read some interesting articles that debunk the notion that mass migrations are going to be any kind of cultural threat to EU despite of what many nationalists try to sell.

Simply put, migrations tend to happen inside limited region except on the richest of the populations from each country. Those rich populations are the less likely to be fanatical and indulge into irrational cultism once they arrive to their "developped country of choice". Hardly the cultural war some are trying to sell us.

So your position is that mass immigration doesn't come with cultural changes (I don't like the word threat, I don't see most immigrants as a threat) because the affluent migrants want to fit in?

Link some of the articles you've read (if in english) because typically mass migration aren't large groups of affluent migrants but generally the poorest and least educated.

Originally posted by Surtur
Overall in the world who is committing more terror attacks Christians or Islamists? Muslims commit more terrorist attacks, but in the US white conservatives commit more then either.

What is your suggestion for dealing with the white, right-wing menace?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Not all Islam and Christianity are equal.

You are correct. For a generation or 2 now, Islam has been worse and far more detrimental to global peace/security/safety.

Tbh, Islam as a religion, might not be able to exist in the 21st Century. It's main tenants and epitaphs are almost incongruent with a free democratic society. Even moderate Muslims in countries such as Canada and Britain would be ostracized if they were Christians and think at BEST homosexuality should be illegal or adultery should be a jailable offence. This isn't some small minority. This is a large percentage.

My mother is Orthodox, but my father is a practicing Muslim. I came from a country that was predominantly Islamic among the ruling class (The populace was Christian, but the real money was pure Arab, originating from Yemen), with close family ties in the Middle East, particularly Oman, Egypt and UAE.

Western ideals and Islam are mutually exclusive. For them to coexist, you'd have to throw so much of the religion out the window, you might as well just stick to a book collecting memorable quotes. Or like Christianity, there needs to be a Vol. 2, and the religion needs to fade as countries become more secular. I.e. Christianity not being taken seriously in the West as the country becomes more educated.

But that will NEVER EVER happen. They will never allow it. Islam as a religion affords FAR too much control. They will kill entire swaths of the population or have to be forcefully overthrown like Tzar's in Russia for there to be a secular government installed in some of these places.

I don't know you, but based on your posts, I think it is very clear you have not travelled much in North/East Africa and in some of the other countries. It's an entirely different world man. It might as well be Mars or the holy land during the Inquisitions. The idea of gender equality, open sexual orientation, or homosexuality? Bruh. It will take like 200 years of INTENSE re-education.

Islam is particularly resistant to change among cultures, even when a people integrates into a country like Canada or Britain.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Muslims commit more terrorist attacks, but in the US white conservatives commit more then either.

What is your suggestion for dealing with the white, right-wing menace?

Is that more in overall numbers or more per percentage of population?

Originally posted by snowdragon
So your position is that mass immigration doesn't come with cultural changes (I don't like the word threat, I don't see most immigrants as a threat) because the affluent migrants want to fit in?

Link some of the articles you've read (if in english) because typically mass migration aren't large groups of affluent migrants but generally the poorest and least educated.

This is like two slightly different topics.

Most people don't want to strand to far away from their place of birth, these are people who even after living in Europe for years and making a good living still dream in going back to their countries. Others will adapt and fit into the local culture. The general rule either way is that most people that get into Europe come from wealthy families that are well educated and capable of allowing some level of decent life over there. This is the most natural kind of migration.

Then you have mass migrations caused by war or natural causes, these mobilize huge populations over a small amount of time, but even then they are mostly moving to the closeby regions. The syrian war is a perfect example: millions moved to the neighboring countries, the amount of people who tried to jump to Europe was meager. If you compare the numbers of people that got into european countries in such a way to the actual population of the country, is ridiculous to pretend their effect in the established culture will be huge. Even in those cases the travellers are far from the less educated and poorest people of their region, because to pay for the long trip they need to have gathered some savings.

Originally posted by Bentley
This is like two slightly different topics.

Most people don't want to strand to far away from their place of birth, these are people who even after living in Europe for years and making a good living still dream in going back to their countries. Others will adapt and fit into the local culture. The general rule either way is that most people that get into Europe come from wealthy families that are well educated and capable of allowing some level of decent life over there. This is the most natural kind of migration.

Then you have mass migrations caused by war or natural causes, these mobilize huge populations over a small amount of time, but even then they are mostly moving to the closeby regions. The syrian war is a perfect example: millions moved to the neighboring countries, the amount of people who tried to jump to Europe was meager. If you compare the numbers of people that got into european countries in such a way to the actual population of the country, is ridiculous to pretend their effect in the established culture will be huge. Even in those cases the travellers are far from the less educated and poorest people of their region, because to pay for the long trip they need to have gathered some savings.

The numbers don't paint the full picture though as in the European countries they aren't spread equally across them. They are typically concentrated in towns with the lowest cost housing and so their impact in those places is disproportionate. In the UK it was supposed to be a maximum of 1 immigrant/asylum seeker per 200 citizens. In some towns it's now 1 in 80 and in some neighborhoods in those towns it's even more concentrated.

lol. pro religion crowd is funny.

Implying religions have developed a "universal framework for morality"

Makes authoritative claim regarding the absolute goodness of someone who lived 2000 years ago.

What's not up for debate is the fact that: Jesus>>Muhammad

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
lol. pro religion crowd is funny.

Implying religions have developed a "universal framework for morality"



Scriptures against stealing/killing/adulturing is a moral framework.


One can argue how well these are followed, but they're there, and religious leaders try and enforce them.


All "non theists" do with their "critical thinking" is attack their enemies for failing to live up to a non existant moral standard on one hand, and justify their hubris's on the other.


Frankly, intelligence has NEVER been a bedfellow of morality. Quite the opposite. It's used as a weapon, to get what one wants, and rationalize how they do it.

Originally posted by cdtm
Scriptures against stealing/killing/adulturing is a moral framework.
Fam, you said "universal framework". Additionally, for you to claim that they were a consequence of religion, you'd need to show the linkage between religion and the concept of murder. That "you shouldn't kill" happens to exist ina religious ideology does not mean religious idealogy is neccesary to come to such a conclusion. What part of "there is a higher power" leads to "don't kill"? You need to show causation, not simply correlation.


As have dictators, authoritarian regimes, replublics, colleges, highschools, and a wide variety of organizations both large and small.

In fact, generally speaking, organizations that set up "moral standards" collectively, like republics, seem to do a much better job at avoiding "Killing and stealing" than organizations that do so based on the whim of a singular figure, like authoritarian regimes. Notice how I'm using intrinsic qualities to link religion to said regimes?

Why? Because when multiple people/things are required to verify something, you're less likely to hit extremes.




I'm sorry, what? What does "moral standard" have I referenced? You are the only one who has made a positive claim regarding the moral standard of an ideology. As I have proposed no universal moral ideolgy, i'd have to classify this argument as a strawman. I'd also assert that this belief of yours that people have the capacity to set " universal moral standards" a form of delusion. Morality is the result of us, as social creatures, realizing over thosands of years that are ability to survive and reproduce is increased by cooporation. Claiming you have some sort of authority on moral standard outside of what you yourself benefit from is nothing more than narccissm.

That religion is neccesary for moral frameworks is dubious considering that we have seen a wide set of contemporary stories, that provide more cleaner, balanced frameworks than we've seen with religion. It'sdoubly dubious since we've seen morality in animals that predate humans.

Intelligence is literally the basis for it u dolt

Uh, what?

The reason critical thinking is bad for morality is that cofimation bias, the opposite of critical thinking which you have literally just described, can be used to coerce people?

Mofo. Do you read what you yourself say?

You've literally outlined the driving force behind religious belief as the cause of bad shit, having just claimed that religion is a "net positive" due to it's uniformity behind rationalization based on a single vague entity.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The numbers don't paint the full picture though as in the European countries they aren't spread equally across them. They are typically concentrated in towns with the lowest cost housing and so their impact in those places is disproportionate. In the UK it was supposed to be a maximum of 1 immigrant/asylum seeker per 200 citizens. In some towns it's now 1 in 80 and in some neighborhoods in those towns it's even more concentrated.

It just adds to the long list of issues that are linked to living in the countryside in Europe. At least in France there is a huge problem of refusing to admit towns need much higher investment and infrastructure due to the cost of fuel and lack of job opportunities. Governments that have nothing to offer to those places don't have anything to offer to immigrants, they are just looking to save up as much as possible.

Originally posted by Bentley
It just adds to the long list of issues that are linked to living in the countryside in Europe. At least in France there is a huge problem of refusing to admit towns need much higher investment and infrastructure due to the cost of fuel and lack of job opportunities. Governments that have nothing to offer to those places don't have anything to offer to immigrants, they are just looking to save up as much as possible.

You kinda jumped the bus when it was described that they would have an impact on culture to how the govt has failed to provide for the immigrants (which means resources taken for other local services) and again that shows mass immigration does have an affect (more then you were willing to admit) on both culture and financial resources.

Originally posted by snowdragon
You kinda jumped the bus when it was described that they would have an impact on culture to how the govt has failed to provide for the immigrants (which means resources taken for other local services) and again that shows mass immigration does have an affect (more then you were willing to admit) on both culture and financial resources.

So countryside towns are what makes and breaks European culture and finances? My argument is that their effect is marginal and the effect of small towns in economy/cultural weight is marginal. It's almost as if you wanted to prove my point for me and then you accused me of jumping the bus awesr

Originally posted by Bentley
So countryside towns are what makes and breaks European culture and finances? My argument is that their effect is marginal and the effect of small towns in economy/cultural weight is marginal. It's almost as if you wanted to prove my point for me and then you accused me of jumping the bus awesr

That isn't the case at all, it's as though your marginalized small towns are breeding grounds for this terrible culture and you are smug enough to dismiss them because they are the fringe of your "culture" as you reside in the city smelling the byproducts across europe.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That isn't the case at all, it's as though your marginalized small towns are breeding grounds for this terrible culture and you are smug enough to dismiss them because they are the fringe of your "culture" as you reside in the city smelling the byproducts across europe.

Marginalized small towns are already breeding grounds for terrible culture, you don't need to get immigrants there for that to be a problem (nationalism and islamism are stronger in those places). France is ghetoized because the distribution of infrastructure and jobs is not enough, because governments want to save a dime. This is something I aknowledged already and it has little to do at all with mass immigration.

This is why I brought it up earlier

Originally posted by Bentley
Marginalized small towns are already breeding grounds for terrible culture, you don't need to get immigrants there for that to be a problem (nationalism and islamism are stronger in those places). France is ghetoized because the distribution of infrastructure and jobs is not enough, because governments want to save a dime. This is something I aknowledged already and it has little to do at all with mass immigration.

This is why I brought it up earlier

I see.

WOOOSH as this issue flies right over your head.

I'm not even sure I get what you're talking about. I brought up analysis about statistical and qualitative data on how mass immigrations are not the cultural war some people make it out to be. You are free to interpret those elements as you see fit.

You then started to talk about ghetos which factually exist already and are breeding grounds for current terrorists and fascists. Those are clearly an issue.

If you have any point that is in anyway related with the above please state it clearly. That way we can carry out with an actual discussion instead of your ad-hominem.

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm not even sure I get what you're talking about. I brought up analysis about statistical and qualitative data on how mass immigrations are not the cultural war some people make it out to be. You are free to interpret those elements as you see fit.

You then started to talk about ghetos which factually exist already and are breeding grounds for current terrorists and fascists. Those are clearly an issue.

If you have any point that is in anyway related with the above please state it clearly. That way we can carry out with an actual discussion instead of your ad-hominem.

You never presented said materials that I asked for (in english so I can understand if they weren't available, you never said otherwise.)

I didn't specifically talk about ghettos but that mass immigration has an effect on culture and that it was generally low-income low education immigrants that come in mass. You started in on affluent immigrants that blend into the culture.

So, in conclusion, you stated you read several studies that you didn't share to form an opinion, then you opined on affluent immigrants, shifted gears and stated mass immigration didn't affect culture and used your point of reference on affluent immigrants to position your outcome on mass immigrants.



The point of the EU was to distribute said immigrants as jaden pointed out and you dismissed that as a poor subculture that is already present. More specifically the idea of the islamic religion was addressed by rage and how it doesn't mesh well with a more progressive culture, another point you washed over. In the end, the result is a change in culture with a poor, uneducated highly religious group that is now able to influence spread across the EU.

Let me look for the article, I don't remember if I read it in english. That's a fair request to make.

Edit: found it https://booksandideas.net/How-Oracles-Are-Forged.html

I dismissed the effect of mass migrations because ghettos with poor uneducated people are already here. If the problem was so drastic and terrible for culture then we should solve the issue instead of waiting for mass migrations to happen. Putting the blame of ghetto-building in mass migration makes little sense.

Islam is also already in France and it doesn't particularly interacts with progressist culture more than your average catholicism does.

I do not believe that the point you present is self-evident. Feel free to cite any decent article you have in hand to support it.

Isn't it a problem to introduce competition for pre-existing ghettoes?


And why don't they simply hire from those existing ghettos? That's one of the things I can't understand about this issue: We ALREADY HAVE people in this very country looking for economic opportunity. No one is hiring them.

Originally posted by cdtm
Isn't it a problem to introduce competition for pre-existing ghettoes?

And why don't they simply hire from those existing ghettos? That's one of the things I can't understand about this issue: We ALREADY HAVE people in this very country looking for economic opportunity. No one is hiring them.


In the EU the problem is two fold.

1) We decided that individual countries shouldn't build big national investments and that most markets should be open to the competition. This means essentially that the government has little to no saying in who gets hired and which places are prioritized. We have to hope for private sectors to be nice and hire people who are relatively uneducated.


2) Ghetto subcultures are terribly mismanaged. When you get a family that finally gets a break with a good job or a decent education, they move out of the city into a better place and get replaced with another family in dire situation. The prizes of ghetto towns are low because they are essentially hot neighborhoods, so people are kept there because they are poor.

It's also different from places next to big cities or small towns but the situation is very similar. You pretty much give people a place to stay but they have about no motivation to ever stick around. City ghettos are already very diverse as far as the origins of those composing them, technically newcomers would be less welcomed on small towns where misery is more of a "people are old and jobless" issue. I'd need to check exactly if there is documentation in how populations react when foreigns arrive in big numbers to their small communities.

Originally posted by Bentley
Let me look for the article, I don't remember if I read it in english. That's a fair request to make.

Edit: found it https://booksandideas.net/How-Oracles-Are-Forged.html

I dismissed the effect of mass migrations because ghettos with poor uneducated people are already here. If the problem was so drastic and terrible for culture then we should solve the issue instead of waiting for mass migrations to happen. Putting the blame of ghetto-building in mass migration makes little sense.

Islam is also already in France and it doesn't particularly interacts with progressist culture more than your average catholicism does.

I do not believe that the point you present is self-evident. Feel free to cite any decent article you have in hand to support it.

That was a good read, thanks It didn't particularly address culture nor did it address religion. You seem to be very focused on France but the EU is more then just France in which mass immigration has take place:

Immigrant share of population

Massive urban areas will generally see the smallest changes just due to the population density of course but you are more than dismissive about areas that are not urban hubs. Remember I'm not talking about solely about immigration but CULTURE and RELIGION. So back to my point that mass immigration does affect culture, religion is a part of that culture and most of the immigrants are poorly educated and pursue a religion that is very regressive compared to the culture of the EU.

I know more of France because I'm french.

It's tricky to wager how much weight culture and religion can have in the EU because the countries are built very differently. Germany and France already have a sh_tload of islam practicioners in their populations with their north african/turk immigrants respectively. They are also highly populated, so odds are the impact of these migrations are minimal. Islam does very little hard in those countries when it comes to influence (religion is largely irrelevant in France anyways).

It might be more interesting to look how it goes in smaller, less populated countries with less historical islam practicioners. I could look around if there is any proof of these populations having a lasting impression in such places.

Jesus could beat Muhammad in a fight!!! Turns the water in his body into acid.

Originally posted by Surtur
Jesus could beat Muhammad in a fight!!! Turns the water in his body into acid.
But what if Muhammad summons his unicorn?? WHO WINS THEN!?

Originally posted by MythLord
But what if Muhammad summons his unicorn?? WHO WINS THEN!?

Jesus says to the unicorn "Wanna work for me or for a child rapist?"

The unicorn then disembowels Muhammad while laughing.

A unicorn disemboweling Muhammad would make an awesome t-shirt.

You think the unicorn understands English?

Originally posted by MythLord
You think the unicorn understands English?

Not at all, Jesus speaks unicorn.

Ah, so next to Latin and Hebrew Jesus can also speak unicorn-ish.

Christ is the Word made flesh, he knows how to use words of any tongue.

Originally posted by Surtur
Jesus could beat Muhammad in a fight!!! Turns the water in his body into acid.

You know deep down that this is why Islam had to retcon their Jesus, the VS religion forums was something they couldn't afford biscuits

Originally posted by cdtm
Isn't it a problem to introduce competition for pre-existing ghettoes?


And why don't they simply hire from those existing ghettos? That's one of the things I can't understand about this issue: We ALREADY HAVE people in this very country looking for economic opportunity. No one is hiring them.
cd, stop dilly-dallying, educate me on this apparent monopoly on "moral frameworks" that skyfathers have.