bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Where? Cite please. I'd like to know who believes people should be executed for working on the sabbath or wearing two different kinds of thread in their shirts. Why, as different sects have their own version of the Bible. See Anabaptists. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
-1=e^ipi Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 The majority of people in the west have no idea that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and surrounding areas were all Christian lands once until conquered by Muslim armies. At that time most people were converted at sword point, or killed. To be honest, there is sort of a beauty in the effectiveness of Islam in converting people: - Sure, you can be non-muslim, but you have to pay us the jizya tax to us and cannot build new places of worship without our permission... Btw, if you are poor and want to convert, then we will give you zakat money. - Slavery is allowed... but if any slave converts to Islam then they must be set free. - Non believers must wear white sashes to distinguish themselves from muslims, sort of like what the nazis did to the jews. - etc. I could go on. I would argue that the basis of the burka is Islam. I would agree that it isn't required, but the insistence from the koran that women dress modestly is used as the basis for the burka by the extremists who are more and more in control throughout the Muslim world today (and by definition becoming the mainstream). I made a thread on this topic. I agree that some people try to use religion or pioty to justify the burka, but that is a severe misinterpretation. Quote
Big Guy Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 His views are a lot less nonsensical than the ones you just posted. That is why I seldom respond to your posts. Why would anybody take seriously anyone who posts in this manner? I sure would not and will not. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Big Guy Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) ... But if you want to believe in things because it makes you feel good regardless of evidence, then there is nothing I can do. What you believe is reality to you. You have that right and who am I to treat your beliefs as nonsense? Your evidence is not necessarily my evidence or the evidence of others. My opinions and views do make me feel good and if I did not enjoy sharing them on this site then I would not do so. Thank you for your civil response. Edited July 9, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Author Report Posted July 9, 2014 Is it possible at all on this forum to have a thread that doesn't deteriorate into the gutter of Muslim bashing?!!! Sheeeeessh! . Quote
Argus Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) That is why I seldom respond to your posts. Why would anybody take seriously anyone who posts in this manner? Is it your position that there are NOT some views which are simply, by weight of evidence, ridiculous or impossible? I'm not trying to be purposefully rude here. It just seems to me you're taking a position which completely ignores a whole history of information to the contrary with nothing to support you but wishful thinking. Edited July 9, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Is it possible at all on this forum to have a thread that doesn't deteriorate into the gutter of Muslim bashing?!!! Sheeeeessh! . Someone brought up multiculturalism and the conversation simply flowed from there. It's not Muslim bashing. It's a discussion on multicuralism's drawbacks (no one has been able to really show its advantages) and has figured around Muslims to an extent. So what? If you don't like it, leave. No one is forcing you to read any of it. No one requires you read any of the topics on citizenship or deportation or refugees and get all angst-ridden about people having different opinions than yours. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
WestCoastRunner Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 It's a discussion on multicuralism's drawbacks (no one has been able to really show its advantages) Advantages to Canada of multiculturalism: Canadians who speak many languages and understand many cultures make it easier for Canada to participate globally in areas of education, trade and diplomacy. Multiculturalism encourages racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding, mutual respect. Mutual respect helps develop common attitudes. New Canadians, no less than other Canadians, respect the political and legal process, and want to address issues by legal and constitutional means. Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging. Acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of, diverse cultures. (less racist) Shall I go on? Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Just keep the religious crap out of out courts (which we in Canada have already learned) and we'll be fine. Take the f'ing burka and put it where teh monkey put the peanut. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 What you believe is reality to you. Different people have different perceptions of reality, sure. But that doesn't mean that objective reality does not exist. You have that right and who am I to treat your beliefs as nonsense? You are you. If you look at the evidence available and conclude that one of my beliefs is not remotely substantiated by the evidence or that my reasoning is seriously flawed, then why wouldn't my beliefs be nonsense to you? Your evidence is not necessarily my evidence or the evidence of others. My opinions and views do make me feel good and if I did not enjoy sharing them on this site then I would not do so. Thank you for your civil response. Oh you are getting all epistemological here. If you really want to go down that road, then we can but it might not be the most productive use of time. Can't we at least start with the premise/assumption that our shared perception of observable reality is true and go from there? Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Canadians who speak many languages and understand many cultures make it easier for Canada to participate globally in areas of education, trade and diplomacy. This statement is poorly worded. Do you mean: 'Increasing the linguistic capabilities of Canadians gives Canada greater ability to interact with other countries'? If so, I would agree with you. Though I would like you to elaborate more on how you think this relates to the topic being discussed because the rest of this argument appears to be implicit and I do not want to misinterpret you. Multiculturalism encourages racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding, mutual respect. This isn't an inherent trait of multiculturalism and depends on the traits of the cultures involved. Some cultures are intolerant, totalitarian and advocate hatred, while others do not. As for 'mutual respect', your sentence is grammatically incorrect but I will assume that you are saying that 'multiculturalism encourages mutual respect'. Again, I do not see how mutual respect necessarily follows from multiculturalism and I do not agree that mutual respect is necessarily a desirable trait. Mutual respect helps develop common attitudes. New Canadians, no less than other Canadians, respect the political and legal process, and want to address issues by legal and constitutional means. The first sentence relies on your last claim which I do not agree upon. As for your claims of new Canadians respecting the political and legal process, that depends on which new Canadians and for many 'new Canadians' this is not true (particularly the ones that want to impose sharia). Would you like me to provide counter examples? Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging. No one should take pride in their ancestry. Being born in a certain race or ethnicity is not an accomplishment (no one chooses their parents), so one should not take pride in it. As for all citizens having a sense of belonging, I certainly do not have a sense of belonging (for a variety of personal reasons that I will not get in to), so that disproves your claim that multiculturalism ensures that all citizens have a sense of belonging. Acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of, diverse cultures. (less racist) Multiculturalism does not imply acceptance. Acceptance isn't necessarily a desirable trait. Self-confidence isn't necessarily a desirable trait. Feeling of security might be desirable, but as I said before, multiculturalism does not imply acceptance. And culture != race, so I'm unsure where the racism comes in. You claims have a lot of implicit premises that other posters and I do not necessarily agree upon. If you want to justify you position you need strongly justify all these implicit premises first in order for other posters and myself to agree. Edited July 9, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Just keep the religious crap out of out courts (which we in Canada have already learned) and we'll be fine. Take the f'ing burka and put it where teh monkey put the peanut. ... What does this mean? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 ... What does this mean? It means quite simply whatever religion you happen to subscribe to don't try making it's particular laws enforceable in any court in my land. Religions need to be pushed into the corners where they belong so as not to hurt others. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 That is a ludicrous response. It's not US who is interpreting Muslim holy books. To suggest our interpretation matters and theirs doesn't is utterly absurd. My response that I don't care about Holy Books is 'ludicrous' and yours that you don't care (as much) about murder rates isn't ? And yet, if I've made it so many times, you still haven't had anything to come back with but to whine that I've made it too many times. That's because there's nothing to say. You have already stated that religious violence matters more to you than murder rates, so every single observation that you make (over and over and over again) will just reinforce your already-held beliefs. No, it's YOUR values which get angry whenever anyone accuses Islam of anything problematic. You're projecting here. I do not "get angry whenever anyone accuses Islam"... That's just false, and revealing of your own emotional take on these discussions. I posted actual information, and your response was a snotty "I've seen this". Again, "snotty" is your overly emotional take on things. No kind of actual thought behind it, no coherent response, just a sulky complaint that I posted something you don't like -- but can't respond to with anything remotely like an intelligent disagreement. I believe I have already explained that simply observing traits of groups - positive or negative - doesn't make any points whatsoever. If it did, then we would also put restrictions on African Americans entering Canada. There are cultural biases and prejudices against African Americans, Jews, Muslims, Irish ... many groups. For you to observe instances of these prejudices having reasons for existing doesn't justify them. And when you bring your own concerns to such an argument (such as when you say you're less concerned about murder rates than religious violence) then you're also making the argument about what Argus likes and doesn't like. It's fine to try to make that argument, but it's not universal and not entirely fact-based so it's flawed. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Big Guy Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 ... Oh you are getting all epistemological here. If you really want to go down that road, then we can but it might not be the most productive use of time. Can't we at least start with the premise/assumption that our shared perception of observable reality is true and go from there? Sounds great! But is any perception not reality to the individual and we tend to see only what we want to see? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
carepov Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Advantages to Canada of multiculturalism: Canadians who speak many languages and understand many cultures make it easier for Canada to participate globally in areas of education, trade and diplomacy. Multiculturalism encourages racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding, mutual respect. Mutual respect helps develop common attitudes. New Canadians, no less than other Canadians, respect the political and legal process, and want to address issues by legal and constitutional means. Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging. Acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of, diverse cultures. (less racist) Shall I go on? These are good points, in general, diversity is a strength. Multiculturalism and our current immigration policies have worked for Canada. The supporting evidence is that the standard of living and life satisfaction of Canadians has been steadily increasing and has out-paced most OECD countries. Canada is consistently rated as the one of the best countries to live in. It is possible that Canada would be an even better country with different policies, but given our progress relative to others, I would think that it is up to those that argue against multiculturalism to describe its disadvantages and provide evidence to support their claims. Quote
Big Guy Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Is it your position that there are NOT some views which are simply, by weight of evidence, ridiculous or impossible? I'm not trying to be purposefully rude here. It just seems to me you're taking a position which completely ignores a whole history of information to the contrary with nothing to support you but wishful thinking. My position is that by dismissing any opinion as universally invalid is not only rude but arrogant. No one has the right to speak for others. They have the full right to express their personal disagreement with another opinion. It is after all, only an opinion. It does not reinforce my position or does it give me pleasure to trash something that another believes. The honest posters here are not attempting to dissuade, intimidate or anger another who opposes their particular opinion. Everybody's opinion and view is valid - to them. I believe that when one disagrees then you have two choices: ignore that which you feel is invalid or point out with civility examples which you feel negate that view. To try to trash an opposing view, opinion or attitude as "nonsense" does nothing to allow the thread to evolve or encourage more discussion. Yes, there are posters who are aggressive and confrontational in their posts and probably expect the same in return. They rightly receive responses in the same tone and escalate the rhetoric to test the envelope created by the owners of the board and waiting for the "referee" to end the combat. I still wonder why there are so many angry posters out there who elicit anonymous confrontation. Can they be really enjoying the process and interaction on that level? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Big Guy Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 ... You claims have a lot of implicit premises that other posters and I do not necessarily agree upon. If you want to justify you position you need strongly justify all these implicit premises first in order for other posters and myself to agree. Is that what the end game is to posting opinions? That someone agrees with you or that you can convince someone to change their mind on an issue? Personally, I would encourage someone posting an opinion based on a premise on which I would disagree. I suggest that would indicate that the poster has a preconditioned attitude based on a different life than mine or sources which they consider valid. I would be better informed through an intelligent and civil dialogue to find out how that attitude was formed. Why would a poster be expected to "justify" something that they believe? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Michael Hardner Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Sounds great! But is any perception not reality to the individual and we tend to see only what we want to see? If we're talking about 'risk' then there are some basic objective measures that are included: liklihood and impact. These factors do lessen the subjectivity of risk assessment somewhat. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Big Guy Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) ... As for your belief that (all?) humans are 'gentle', where the people that beat me up, stole my wallet from me and gave me a concussion last month gentle? Was Anders Breivik gentle when he killed 77 people in 2011? Were the people that flew planes into the world trade center gentle? Was Luka Magnotta gentle when he hacked Lin Jun to pieces in 2012? Was Hitler gentle? But if you want to believe in things because it makes you feel good regardless of evidence, then there is nothing I can do. I believe that all humans are born gentle and then develop personalities, traits, affiliations etc. as a result of their environment. Because of this premise, to suggest that a culture, nationality or religious group exhibits a negative homogeneous attitude is unacceptable to me. I am more concerned with the environment influences that takes a "gentle" human being and causes him/her to become violent towards themselves and others. I do not believe that there is some dominant or recessive gene or DNA strand or ... that a person is born with that dictates their behaviour in a society. And I stand by that opinion. Edited July 9, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Michael Hardner Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 My position is that by dismissing any opinion as universally invalid is not only rude but arrogant. Indeed. As I have said to Argus, his position is understandable and even reasonable by some measures. At the very least, his questions are asked by many other people and should be addressed based on the facts. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Advantages to Canada of multiculturalism: Canadians who speak many languages and understand many cultures make it easier for Canada to participate globally in areas of education, trade and diplomacy. Which produces what benefit? Weren't we already participating globally in education, trade and diplomacy? Does, say, the US or Japan, neither of which have multiculturalism, participate globally in education, trade and diplomacy? Multiculturalism encourages racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding, mutual respect. Well, that's the theory. The problem is there's little evidence that actually works. Multiculturalism was strongly stressed in France and England, both of whichg have no declared it a huge failure, perhaps because of all the race riots and the strong resenment so many immigrant groups retain for those countries. Mutual respect helps develop common attitudes. New Canadians, no less than other Canadians, respect the political and legal process, and want to address issues by legal and constitutional means. But you haven't actually established that multiculturalism does encourage mutual respect. It could also encourage immigrant groups to retain their old ways, including their old hatreds and biases. Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging. There lies the difficulty. Keeping their old identities might well preclude them actually having a sense of belonging here. That is what the French and British have determined. Acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of, diverse cultures. (less racist) I don't see any real evidence of this. Multiculturalism in the UK and France certainly didn't make people less racist. If anything, people there became more separate and more racist. Shall I go on? Sure. Did you get thise off a government web site, btw? Why do you figure the multiculturalism practiced in France, the UK and Sweden didn't work, but that somehow or other ours works splendidly? Edited July 9, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted July 9, 2014 Author Report Posted July 9, 2014 It's a discussion on multicuralism's drawbacks It's a discussion on "What unites Canadians?" (no one has been able to really show its advantages) and has figured around Muslims to an extent.It has "figured around" the latest arrivals to Canada who dress in 'funny clothes', which offends the xenophobes."Advantages" ... many advantages ... if you google it: the-rise-of-multicultural-managers/ In short, their ability to be creative, to share complex knowledge across locations, contexts and cultures and to manage global innovation and product development teams effectively is precisely why multiculturals in integrative roles in the innovation process do make such a positive difference. And MORE ... advantages-multiculturalism-workplace- /community/benefits-multiculturalism /Diversity-in-the-Workplace-Benefits-Challenges-Solutions /Multicultural-Work-Force THE CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CEO's /the-immigration-advantage-how-multiculturalism-helps-canada-compete And much more ... if you bother to look it up. Women in burqa's don't bother me. The ones who bother me are the huffy red faced sweating heart-attack-in-waiting pale faced bitter middle aged men who snarl at everyone who isn't as uncomfortable as they have made themselves. So ... why should the rest of Canadians care what a few mouthy petty xenophobes think. We carry on doing the best thing for all of us despite the nasty blather. That's what unites Canadians. . Quote
Michael Hardner Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Multiculturalism in the UK and France certainly didn't make people more racist. If anything, people there became more separate and more racist. You have to choose whether to argue that the policy is ineffectual, or that it does damage. It can't be both. ie. People either listen to the message of multiculturalism or they don't. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 My response that I don't care about Holy Books is 'ludicrous' and yours that you don't care (as much) about murder rates isn't ? Your statement that you don't care about Holy books because 'reasonable' people don't pay attention to them is ludicrous in the context of this discussion. The undeniable fact is that other groups, massive numbers of them, most certainly DO care very much what they say, believe them to be the word of God, and govern their actions accordingly. And, btw, I never said I didn't care about murder rates. Where are you getting that from? I said that certain countries have high murder rates due to drug cartels (for example) and that those groups are fighting over territory and unlikely to be emigrating. Thus their violencen THERE is not much of a concern to me compared to the violence inspired by religion since that can be exported to places where I live and travel. That's because there's nothing to say. You have already stated that religious violence matters more to you than murder rates, so every single observation that you make (over and over and over again) will just reinforce your already-held beliefs. It's nice that you can invent these beliefs for me and then give me info from the psyche 101 class you took thirty years ago to inform me how that affects me. Thanks for that. Unfortunately, youre original statement is completely wrong in every respect. The kind of world violence that matters to me(in the context of this discussion) is violence which might be imported here. Thus, based on observation I would prefer to not be importing Jamaicans, Haitians or Somalians - not based on religious violence but observable criminal behavior in those countires which has transferred to Canada along with citizens of those countries. You're projecting here. I do not "get angry whenever anyone accuses Islam"... That's just false, and revealing of your own emotional take on these discussions. I've seen that you get extremely defensive and snarky whenever people start talking too openly of the drawbacks of Islam and its people. I believe I have already explained that simply observing traits of groups - positive or negative - doesn't make any points whatsoever. If it did, then we would also put restrictions on African Americans entering Canada. Observable traits of groups, and their behaviour while in Canada seems plenty of justification to me to determine which of these groups performs better as immigrants/citizens, and which performs worse. There are cultural biases and prejudices against African Americans, Jews, Muslims, Irish ... many groups. Okay, but I'm not discussing cultural biasess or prejudices. I'm discussing government evidence of their economic performance in Canada, along with cultural traits they bring to Canada. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.