kraychik Posted October 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 There's nothing wrong with, immoral about, or even inaccurate in generalizing about a group, or judging that group, based on the long observed behaviour of that group. What you do have to be aware of is that individual behaviour can vary widely within the group. Thus you cannot 'pre-judge' an individual based on the observed group behaviour. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 No various events in other countries dont provide me with evidence of a problem with Canadas immigration system. Exactly, they don't provide you with evidence. Nevermind the fact that these very same people have plotted terrorist attacks in Canada. Well what ever Island I DO live on, immigration policy in Canada should be informed by studying Canadian immigrants. There looks to about 600 thousand of them which is an adequate sample. Is your position that these immigrants pose some kind of big problem? If so, what is your evidence? I'm not the one who still doesn't know why Statistics Canada doesn't keep the kinds of statistics you were asking for earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Well what ever Island I DO live on, immigration policy in Canada should be informed by studying Canadian immigrants. There looks to about 600 thousand of them which is an adequate sample. Is your position that these immigrants pose some kind of big problem? If so, what is your evidence? he doesn't supply evidence, that's his game, baseless accusations built on personal opinion and hatred, evidence optionalnever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) The same people that invoke Timothy McVeigh in a desperate attempt to deflect from the virtual monopoly Islam has on contemporary terrorism are the same people who we should blame for why grandma's colostomy bag is being searched by the TSA and why Nidal Hasan was able to overtly express his Jihadist ideology as an army psychiatrist and succeed in his mission to murder American soldiers. During the Troubles, I recall arriving at Heathrow after a spree of Provo bombings. You walked down this long ramp with doors on either side with huge uniformed men with sharp searching eyes pulled folks out of line and into rooms for a wee discussion about the Irish. By the time we got to the end of the ramp, our numbers were down by about half. Single, possibly Irish, men were their target, but they also seemed to enjoy taking every hippy flowerchild type getting off the plane, as well. Edited October 1, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) There's nothing wrong with, immoral about, or even inaccurate in generalizing about a group, or judging that group, based on the long observed behaviour of that group. What you do have to be aware of is that individual behaviour can vary widely within the group. Thus you cannot 'pre-judge' an individual based on the observed group behaviour. You need to make sure you have the right group though. Whats relevant to a discussion about immigration is not how muslim communties behave in Sudan or Indonesia. Its how they behave in CANADA. So we need to look at the 600 thousand muslim immigrants here, and study them, before we can even know if theres a problem that warrants reforming immigration law. Do they behave? Do they pay taxes? Do they honor our laws? And these questions of course have to be answered relative to other immigrant demographics. Then once we have established there is a problem, and ascertained the scope and extent of that problem we can move to the solution phase and talk about constuctive ways to mitigate that problem Edited October 1, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Exactly. Generalization: Hell's Angels like beer. Reality: Two of them don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewTeddy Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I blocked him because he can't debate the issue. Example Bob says: I like beer He will then say: I bet you are like all the Bobs I know, you only like bad beer! Rather than debating this Bob, he turns Bob into something he can debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 You need to make sure you have the right group though. Whats relevant to a discussion about immigration is not how muslim communties behave in Sudan or Indonesia. Its how they behave in CANADA. So we need to look at the 600 thousand muslim immigrants here, and study them, before we can even know if theres a problem that warrants reforming immigration law. and these communities are very different, a muslim community from somalia is very different than an morrocan, eyptian, iranian, uzbek, indonesian, fillipino, turks etc...all different ethnic groups, races, cultures and languages....racist based opinion would have you believe they're all the same and uniform...this as absurd as saying all europeans have the same cultural attitude because they were all christian... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 There's nothing wrong with, immoral about, or even inaccurate in generalizing about a group, or judging that group, based on the long observed behaviour of that group. What you do have to be aware of is that individual behaviour can vary widely within the group. Thus you cannot 'pre-judge' an individual based on the observed group behaviour. Trouble is, when one talks of screening immigrants to confirm their ideological suitability to enter our country, or limiting what individuals can enter the country based on the "long observed behaviour" of the group to which they belong, you are in essence pre-judging that individual. Now I have no problem setting stringent requirements for entry to this country: you convinced me that immigration only makes sense in so far as it is a net benefit to Canada and thus we should be mainly allowing in people with the skills and or willingness to contribute. However, being a pragmatist above all, I'm sure you'll agree that the additional values-based screening methods the OP makes reference to (but never identifies) is problematic from at least a practical standpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Your juvenile behaviour says everything about you and nothing about me. So what, pray tell, does your juvenile behaviour say about you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Trouble is, when one talks of screening immigrants to confirm their ideological suitability to enter our country, or limiting what individuals can enter the country based on the "long observed behaviour" of the group to which they belong, you are in essence pre-judging that individual. Now I have no problem setting stringent requirements for entry to this country: you convinced me that immigration only makes sense in so far as it is a net benefit to Canada and thus we should be mainly allowing in people with the skills and or willingness to contribute. However, being a pragmatist above all, I'm sure you'll agree that the additional values-based screening methods the OP makes reference to (but never identifies) is problematic from at least a practical standpoint. Yes, it's problematic. That's why the pragmatist in me says we should be focusing on areas of the world, on cultures of the world, more likely to produce immigrants who will be not only economically successful but be better able to culturally integrate. That isn't judging the individual, it's judging the group. I regard immigrants as a commodity Canada is acquiring. Seems to me that grabbing groups with the highest success rates only makes sense. And we know that people from certain areas of the world fare more poorly economically, and seem to be more prone to societal adjustment issues than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Even if leftists like Michael Hardner or Black Dog were to actually open a history book, they would still continue to deflect from the relationship between Islamism and tyranny. They are committed to doing everything they can to obfuscate and pretend that unknown and far more complex factors are to blame for the systemic failures of this ideology, because they are terrified that it will be associated with Muslims and possibly lead a "moderate Muslim" to an unfair stereotype. I think it's been well established you are unfamiliar with any history text...you dwell in a world of generalities based on hate...The same people that invoke Timothy McVeigh in a desperate attempt to deflect from the virtual monopoly Islam has on contemporary terrorism are the same people who we should blame for why grandma's colostomy bag is being searched by the TSA and why Nidal Hasan was able to overtly express his Jihadist ideology as an army psychiatrist and succeed in his mission to murder American soldiers.as you desperately ignore the ultimate single christian/nazi tyrant that all the victims of islamic terror combined don't come close to equaling in depravity and hate...a depraved christian tyrant who you could have taken the high road and conceded was the ultimate tyrant but did't, that's very telling of your personal ideology of hate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Do they behave? Do they pay taxes? Do they honor our laws? And these questions of course have to be answered relative to other immigrant demographics. statistics would appear to support that areas with high immigrant populations have recorded a drop in crime rates... http://www.cifar.ca/arrival-of-the-fittest-canadas-crime-rate-is-dropping-as-immigration-increases-is-there-a-connectionthen there is my neighbourhood, the largest in calgary, 38% immigrant(add that to an already large "ethnic" canadian community) is also one of the most crime free areas of the city...immigrants are less crime prone than canadians... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 You need to make sure you have the right group though. Whats relevant to a discussion about immigration is not how muslim communties behave in Sudan or Indonesia. Its how they behave in CANADA. So we need to look at the 600 thousand muslim immigrants here, and study them, before we can even know if theres a problem that warrants reforming immigration law. To an extent, true, but we already know there's an economic problem with the economic performance of immigrants, and we already know who those immigrants are -- generally speaking. Recent immigrants economic performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) I just don't live near social groups I don't agree with so I don't have too look at or deal with them at all during my life. I live in a peaceful area so I can live my life peacefully and without being a target of violence due to my race/religious affiliation. Edited October 1, 2012 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I just don't live near social groups I don't agree with so I don't have too look at or deal with them at all during my life. I live in a peaceful area so I can live my life peacefully and without being a target of violence due to my race/religious affiliation. You live in a cemetery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I just don't live near social groups I don't agree with so I don't have too look at or deal with them at all during my life. I live in a peaceful area so I can live my life peacefully and without being a target of violence due to my race/religious affiliation. and I've a lifetime of living with different religious/ethnic/races and have never been targeted because of my race/non-religious affiliation...any violence I've endured came at the hands of native canadians... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Generalization: Hell's Angels like beer. Reality: Two of them don't. What does this mean? Being a Hell's Angel doesn't cause you to like beer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Yes, it's problematic. That's why the pragmatist in me says we should be focusing on areas of the world, on cultures of the world, more likely to produce immigrants who will be not only economically successful but be better able to culturally integrate. That isn't judging the individual, it's judging the group. I regard immigrants as a commodity Canada is acquiring. Seems to me that grabbing groups with the highest success rates only makes sense. And we know that people from certain areas of the world fare more poorly economically, and seem to be more prone to societal adjustment issues than others. There are vast differences in a person/familiy's ability to integrate even when they are from the same cultural background. While there may be differences between the cultures to some extent, there are much larger factors like community support, socioeconomic status, education, jobs, languages, etc. that play a much larger role in people's ability to integrate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) There was a protest at the American consulate in Toronto from Muslims who demanded an end to freedom of speech and expression, while also finding a few moments to attack Israel and Zionism with some thinly-veiled anti-Semitism. Why is this important? It reveals how irresponsible immigration policies import people who subscribe to a set of values antithetical to Canadian values of freedom. Couple that with "multiculturalism" policies that actually encourage people to cling to these anti-Canadian values, and you've got a recipe for cultural destruction. Predictably, the CBC and its fellow leftist co-conspirators ignored this story. Well, the only problem with having such people with these beliefs in this country is when you get enough of them in this country that they have the voting power to elect many MP's with their views and are able to actually change the laws. So far luckily this is far from the case, but I respect their right to protest but I'm in agreement that I'm not thrilled with Canada immigrating people who wish to have things like the anti-Muslim film banned or wish the filmmaker "hanged to death". On the other hand, a Muslim in the crowd claims that the film qualifies as a hate-crime, which is a legit argument because maybe it could I'm not sure. Edited October 2, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Yes, it's problematic. That's why the pragmatist in me says we should be focusing on areas of the world, on cultures of the world, more likely to produce immigrants who will be not only economically successful but be better able to culturally integrate. That isn't judging the individual, it's judging the group. I regard immigrants as a commodity Canada is acquiring. Seems to me that grabbing groups with the highest success rates only makes sense. And we know that people from certain areas of the world fare more poorly economically, and seem to be more prone to societal adjustment issues than others. But we're not grabbing groups: we're grabbing individuals from those groups. We should be grabbing the individuals who can adjust better and bring more to the table and not close ourselves off from potential contributors by slamming the door on the whole group. After all, if you take immigrants on a case by case basis based not on the performance of the group, but the individual qualifications, you will probably be excluding those who would be more likely to struggle: your "illiterate goat herders." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 What does this mean? Being a Hell's Angel doesn't cause you to like beer. That's not what was said. I said: Hell's Angels like beer while pointing out that some will indeed buck the trend. You're the one adding cause and effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 But we're not grabbing groups: we're grabbing individuals from those groups. We should be grabbing the individuals who can adjust better and bring more to the table and not close ourselves off from potential contributors by slamming the door on the whole group. After all, if you take immigrants on a case by case basis based not on the performance of the group, but the individual qualifications, you will probably be excluding those who would be more likely to struggle: your "illiterate goat herders." The thing is we already have a points based system thats one of the best performing immigration systems in the world. We seem to be putting the cart before the horse here and trying to find solutions before we identify a problem. And we appear to be doing this based on a peaceful protest against a film by a tiny percentage of Canadas 600 000 muslims. This is not a way to formulate good policy. Its a way to make stupid policy based on knee-jerk reactionism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Well, the only problem with having such people with these beliefs in this country is when you get enough of them in this country that they have the voting power to elect many MP's with their views and are able to actually change the laws. So far luckily this is far from the case, but I respect their right to protest but I'm in agreement that I'm not thrilled with Canada immigrating people who wish to have things like the anti-Muslim film banned or wish the filmmaker "hanged to death". On the other hand, a Muslim in the crowd claims that the film qualifies as a hate-crime, which is a legit argument because maybe it could I'm not sure. I dont know if it would be a hate crime or not in Canada. Probably not. But it could be a case of wreckless endangerment which is broadly defined as... Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I dont know if it would be a hate crime or not in Canada. Probably not. But it could be a case of wreckless endangerment which is broadly defined as... Interesting point about reckless endangerment. If muslims can have a film banned by reacting violently to it could abortions be banned if christians bombed the tar out of a bunch of family planning clinics? Could we reverse the ban on bad films (and good cartoons and books) by blowing up more things than muslims do until they are allowed again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.