Stripping citizenship.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think you did.

[marcus]

When there are 25,000 terrorist attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam in ten years it's awfully hard not to roll your eyes at the 'religion of peace'.

Can you perhaps point me to the Breitbart link you got that stats from?

I can point you to this link which comes nowhere close to 25,000 Islamist terrorist attacks. It's somewhere in the 100's.

When you read Pew Research polls which show hundreds of millions of Muslims support execution for apostasy and blasphemy it's a little hard to grant the idea that we're only dealing with an occasional fanatic.

You didn't read Pew Research Polls. You read Breitbart and wordpress links that cherry picked numbers and generalized a whole group. If you actually read the Pew Research Polls, you would come to the conclusion that it's stupid to generalize and paint all Muslims with the same brush stroke. If you took a look at the polls, you would see the large variety in the way questions were responded to, in different Muslim countries and regions. You would also see that North Americans, Europeans, Syrians, Iranians and a large number of other areas were actually not questioned in this poll. These variables make a difference in how we should look at people. Putting a stamp on over a billion people and looking at them like they all think, feel and look the same is stupid. You just displayed an example of what was discussed: emotion and laziness ruling over intellect.

This is why it's difficult to debate reality with those with bigoted minds. Not only are they bigots, but they are also too lazy to look at the information. They prefer to become emotional and repeat comments made on wordpress sites and then throw in "Pew Research Polls" to give themselves credibility and to persuade others that their fears and comments have merit.

Edited November 5, 2015 by marcus

[eyeball]

I don't know what will happen in 20 years. I do know, based on the academic literature which you continue to ignore ,that immigration is not going to make much difference, and that it comes with a hefty cost to the economy (according to Fraser Institute)

I'm struck at how really moot all this discussion is in the face of academic literature that underscores the hefty environmental cost of constantly expanding our population, but I would expect the Fraser Institute to approach that topic the way the most interesting man in the world approached the topic of bromance..."I have no idea what you're talking about".

In the meantime even China is shopping around for immigrants.

100m immigrants needed to save aging Chinese workforce

Edited November 5, 2015 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Then maybe we should be working on something to increase the birth rate, like the French are, instead of, as you seem to be advocating, embracing immigration as the solution despite all the academic studies which say it is not. What is your Liberal government advocating to address this issue? Nothing, so far as I can see. So clearly they don't share your concern.

Jeebus Christy... It's like our entire conversation yesterday didn't happen. Wow, you think?

I just have to shake my head at you Argus. It's almost as if you just argue some times for the sake of arguing, and you take opposing positions simply because they facilitate your need to argue.

[Argus]

Did you ever respond to my post where I showed American attitudes to be remarkably middle-of-the-pack when compared with Muslim nations on the question of religion-and-state separation ?

I don't know where the post was made. How many Americans wanted to the state to execute Christians who left the faith or insulted Jesus?

[Argus]

Jeebus Christy... It's like our entire conversation yesterday didn't happen. Wow, you think?

I just have to shake my head at you Argus. It's almost as if you just argue some times for the sake of arguing, and you take opposing positions simply because they facilitate your need to argue.

Don't let it bother you. I was just proving that for the Left, facts, scientific or otherwise, academic studies, none of that matters. You don't care about the numbers. All you care about are your feelings, your emotions. That's why it's so hard for a conservative to argue with lefties, because conservatives care about facts and numbers and logic, and making decisions based on any of that strikes lefties as shockingly immoral.

For you, immigration is the solution to an aging population, and that's that. There's no room for facts which contradict that. Immigrants are delightful and quaint and have lovely restaurants, after all, so opposing bringing them is, like, evil or something.

[ToadBrother]

Don't let it bother you. I was just proving that for the Left, facts, scientific or otherwise, academic studies, none of that matters. You don't care about the numbers. All you care about are your feelings, your emotions. That's why it's so hard for a conservative to argue with lefties, because conservatives care about facts and numbers and logic, and making decisions based on any of that strikes lefties as shockingly immoral.

For you, immigration is the solution to an aging population, and that's that. There's no room for facts which contradict that. Immigrants are delightful and quaint and have lovely restaurants, after all, so opposing bringing them is, like, evil or something.

I never said it was the solution. Migration, both external and internal, is going to have to increase, but we're also going to have to access populations who have traditionally not been part of the labour pool (single parents, the disabled, First Nations, etc.) and in the end we will have to incentivize childbearing.

It's why I figure within a decade we'll have a national daycare program, regardless of who is in power.

[Argus]

I never said it was the solution.

No? This topic diversion came about because of my musing about how low the bar is to come to Canada and get citizeship. Your reply was, and I quote

Considering the demographic timebomb that is going to hit us in the next fifteen years, I think we're going to have to set the bar even lower.

You then went on to see we'll even need to bring in more non-skilled labour out of our alleged desperate need of workers.

Pardon me for thinking you wanted to bring in immigrants to combat an aging population.

[Argus]

I'll find it for you.

Your loaded question wasn't part of the polling by the way, so you can just put that away. You can look at things subjectively, or be over-the-top hyperbolic but it's just confusing when one poster shows those two traits simultaneously.

It was part of the Pew research poll. Why is it hyperbolic to suggest vast numbers of Muslims want to execute anyone who blasphemes, insults the prophet, or tries to leave Islam when it's demonstrably true?

[ToadBrother]

No? This topic diversion came about because of my musing about how low the bar is to come to Canada and get citizeship. Your reply was, and I quote

You then went on to see we'll even need to bring in more non-skilled labour out of our alleged desperate need of workers.

Pardon me for thinking you wanted to bring in immigrants to combat an aging population.

And we are. Whever it comes from, we're going to need it. And unskilled labour as well.

The math don't lie. We need a fertility rate of 2.1, and we have a fertility rate of 1.6. YOu can bluster and bemoan and attack immigration, but we've determined after all of that is even you know there's a looming problem. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Argus]

I also don't buy into the idea of turning away and saying, "That's not Islam. Islam is a religion of peace".

Religions give rise to fanaticism sometimes. Every religion has fanatics. Islam simply has a lot more of them than others, and they're a lot more violent.

25,000 Islamic terrorist acts since 9/11... or maybe a lot more.

In 2014, the BBC did a thorough analysis of Islamic terror attacks occurring during the month of November. They found 664 attacks and 5,042 deaths. Our list has only 284 attacks and 2,515 deaths for that month, meaning that we undercounted the true extent of Islamic terror by a significant margin.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm

Edited November 6, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

And we are. Whever it comes from, we're going to need it. And unskilled labour as well.

The math don't lie. We need a fertility rate of 2.1, and we have a fertility rate of 1.6. YOu can bluster and bemoan and attack immigration, but we've determined after all of that is even you know there's a looming problem. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

You brought up the need for immigration to fight an aging population and now you're getting all huffy after I've posted reams of studies showing it won't. You want to use immigration to fight an aging population? Change the immigration system to bring in only young people, only recent university graduates, say. But that's not the way our system operates, and your new huggable leader has actually vowed to make it easier to bring in immigrant seniors. How much help you think that's gonna be combating an aging population?

Hey, here's an idea, if we weren't spending $21 billion a year on immigration maybe we'd have more money to help incentivize child bearing?

Anyway if you want to discuss a variety of scenarios on how to combat an aging population then you should probably start a thread for that purpose.

[Michael Hardner]

It was part of the Pew research poll.

Yes, I believe I used that poll too it's a good source.

Why is it hyperbolic to suggest vast numbers of Muslims want to execute anyone who blasphemes, insults the prophet, or tries to leave Islam when it's demonstrably true?

One chooses words alternately to provoke, or to subjectively discuss... you do both. "Vast numbers of Muslims want to exexecute ...." is the language of blame not of analysis.

[Argus]

One chooses words alternately to provoke, or to subjectively discuss... you do both. "Vast numbers of Muslims want to exexecute ...." is the language of blame not of analysis.

Would you prefer I go over the percentages of each of the countries listed in the poll to provide you with an actual number? Of course, the number would understate the case since not all states were counted.

I could also use some other word than 'execute'... perhaps 'hack to death' would be better?

[poochy]

You brought up the need for immigration to fight an aging population and now you're getting all huffy after I've posted reams of studies showing it won't. You want to use immigration to fight an aging population? Change the immigration system to bring in only young people, only recent university graduates, say. But that's not the way our system operates, and your new huggable leader has actually vowed to make it easier to bring in immigrant seniors. How much help you think that's gonna be combating an aging population?

Hey, here's an idea, if we weren't spending $21 billion a year on immigration maybe we'd have more money to help incentivize child bearing?

Anyway if you want to discuss a variety of scenarios on how to combat an aging population then you should probably start a thread for that purpose.

You want Canadian women to have more kids? What are you some kind of monster? That's just not progressive, and we will not stand for it, bringing in thousands of immigrants who don't even speak the predominant language, well that's something all together different. That's a sunny way.

[ToadBrother]

You want Canadian women to have more kids? What are you some kind of monster? That's just not progressive, and we will not stand for it, bringing in thousands of immigrants who don't even speak the predominant language, well that's something all together different. That's a sunny way.

And how do you propose to incentivize families have more children? Do you think a boutique tax credit for hockey sticks will do it? A few extra bucks in a child benefit?

The NDP were wrong about a lot of things, but sooner or later, we're going to have to start making it not just financially viable, but financially attractive. Hello national daycare program, hello greatly extended and greatly increased maternity benefits.

It will be fun watching the Tory and/or Liberal number crunchers facing up to the reality that to get over this demographic hump and get us back up to a fertility rate of 2.1 is going to mean spending taxpayer money, and lots and lots of it, or paying a far greater price as we approach mid-century.

Ideology, meet reality, and reality always wins.

[Guest]

Religions give rise to fanaticism sometimes. Every religion has fanatics. Islam simply has a lot more of them than others, and they're a lot more violent.

25,000 Islamic terrorist acts since 9/11... or maybe a lot more.

In 2014, the BBC did a thorough analysis of Islamic terror attacks occurring during the month of November. They found 664 attacks and 5,042 deaths. Our list has only 284 attacks and 2,515 deaths for that month, meaning that we undercounted the true extent of Islamic terror by a significant margin.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm

I think the post you quoted was deleted. I have no idea why, and no-one's saying...

[Guest]

He was referring to the usual generalization, stereotypes and condescending comments made by some posters on here who like to paint a whole group of people with one brush stroke. Where they refer to the actions of a few Muslim groups who engage in terrorism, and then, with an eye roll, repeat "'religion of peace', shhhyah! whatever!".

But it was mostly his first paragraph that caught my eye. Which I feel describes the situation and the approach of, who I think are bigots, quite well:

I did reply to this, in a sane and responsible way. It was deleted. I can't reply in a diiferent manner, as that wouldn't be the truth. I hope you got to read it.

Edit> Actually, I'll try and repost it exactly as it was. I'm sure it was deleted by mistake.

Edited November 6, 2015 by bcsapper

[Guest]

He was referring to the usual generalization, stereotypes and condescending comments made by some posters on here who like to paint a whole group of people with one brush stroke. Where they refer to the actions of a few Muslim groups who engage in terrorism, and then, with an eye roll, repeat "'religion of peace', shhhyah! whatever!".

But it was mostly his first paragraph that caught my eye. Which I feel describes the situation and the approach of, who I think are bigots, quite well:

Here we go...

Well, as I've said on here in the past, there is no such thing as a religion of peace, so such a claim made by the adherents of any religion is fair game for mockery. There is only the religion of Human interpretation.

I haven't read the comments you describe on here by any poster, with a very few exceptions who are probably the same person and usually get banned. Rather, I've read, and made, comments similar to the quote on Christianity. Only the numbers vary.

There are Buddhists in Burma who are targeting Muslims, for no reason other than their religion. There are Christians in Africa who target gays and would see them executed for the crime, legally. There are Witches in Africa who cut up Albino children for spells. All worthy of comment, and I've probably made comments about such on here.

There are just a lot more instances when one can make those type of comments when it comes to Islam. That there are other religions that indulge in violent, primitive barbarianism is beyond question. That there are members of all religions who don't is also beyond question. I just don't buy into the idea that one is tarring a whole religion by bringing attention to the horrors of some aspects of the religion such as the recent stoning in Afghanistan, for example.

I also don't buy into the idea of turning away and saying, "That's not Islam. Islam is a religion of peace".

I always like to ask the question, how do you feel about it?

As to the "first paragraph" you quote. I just don't agree with any of it.

(I suspect the reason for my previous deletion, if it wasn't a mistake, might be in what I said next, so I'll refrain. I still think that though.)

Edited November 6, 2015 by bcsapper

[Guest]

He was referring to the usual generalization, stereotypes and condescending comments made by some posters on here who like to paint a whole group of people with one brush stroke. Where they refer to the actions of a few Muslim groups who engage in terrorism, and then, with an eye roll, repeat "'religion of peace', shhhyah! whatever!".

But it was mostly his first paragraph that caught my eye. Which I feel describes the situation and the approach of, who I think are bigots, quite well:

Actually, I had an idea that will enable me to find out. Here is the paragraph you quoted

There is this thing on the right which demands that emotions rule intellect, that excuses be found to justify bigotry and cruelty, that facts be disregarded in favour of myth and hyperbole. Mind you, when their arguments are demonstrated to be false, they blame anything but their own flawed reasoning. It's a weird sort of determination to find something - anything - to prove they are the victims, even when they occupy the most powerful and privileged position in society.

My disagreement was with the notion that the right demands emotion over intellect. I find that reality is the other way around. As examples I used the current thread on microaggressions and the general trend in universities these days to deny anything that might upset anyone. I also find that it is the left that disregards facts for fear of being seen as bigoted, instead of just honest.

[ToadBrother]

My disagreement was with the notion that the right demands emotion over intellect. I find that reality is the other way around. As examples I used the current thread on microaggressions and the general trend in universities these days to deny anything that might upset anyone. I also find that it is the left that disregards facts for fear of being seen as bigoted, instead of just honest.

Let's be clear. Both sides of the political spectrum will happily cheer on any particular research that at least appears to fit within their ideological framework, and will condemn any research that challenges it.

I remember last year The Guardian, the most left-leaning of major First World newspapers had two columns in their editorial section in the same day, one championing climate change research and condemning the political right in Britain for pseudo-skepticism, and another condemning some research into primate brains that demonstrated that male primates (good ol' H. sapiens included) were better at building geographical maps (not really remarkable, such research has been around for decades).

The explanation for how a paper that of late has so proudly holds itself up as a paragon of virtue in the defense of science could condemn one well established bit of science while simultaneously condemning another fairly unremarkable bit of science is that AGW fits well within the neo-Marxism anti-"neo-liberal"-ism (whatever that precisely is) that the likes of George Monbiot latch on to, while the other is perceived as an attack of the paper's well-known espousal of feminism.

My take on that is that ideologues are never really all that rational. They do seem to believe, despite centuries of demonstrating that the Universe doesn't actually care in the tiniest degree about ideology, that somehow reality owes them a favor. But, like a stopped clock, ideologues on both sides of the spectrum will be right twice a day.

For me, I long ago abandoned the notion that science, and reality as a whole, owes me even the smallest favor. If the world is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions, that's really just tough beans for industrialized economies. The laws of nature simply do not owe any economic, political or social system a free ride. By the same token, if evolution wired female and male brains differently, it really doesn't matter how much that may offend some peoples' sensibilities. Once again, the Universe doesn't care about equality, not even the tiniest little bit.

[marcus]

I think the post you quoted was deleted. I have no idea why, and no-one's saying...

Here we go...

Well, as I've said on here in the past, there is no such thing as a religion of peace, so such a claim made by the adherents of any religion is fair game for mockery. There is only the religion of Human interpretation.

I haven't read the comments you describe on here by any poster, with a very few exceptions who are probably the same person and usually get banned. Rather, I've read, and made, comments similar to the quote on Christianity. Only the numbers vary.

There are Buddhists in Burma who are targeting Muslims, for no reason other than their religion. There are Christians in Africa who target gays and would see them executed for the crime, legally. There are Witches in Africa who cut up Albino children for spells. All worthy of comment, and I've probably made comments about such on here.

There are just a lot more instances when one can make those type of comments when it comes to Islam. That there are other religions that indulge in violent, primitive barbarianism is beyond question. That there are members of all religions who don't is also beyond question. I just don't buy into the idea that one is tarring a whole religion by bringing attention to the horrors of some aspects of the religion such as the recent stoning in Afghanistan, for example.

I also don't buy into the idea of turning away and saying, "That's not Islam. Islam is a religion of peace".

I always like to ask the question, how do you feel about it?

As to the "first paragraph" you quote. I just don't agree with any of it.

(I suspect the reason for my previous deletion, if it wasn't a mistake, might be in what I said next, so I'll refrain. I still think that though.)

I agree with a lot of what you have said in your post.

Here is a response I made to one of the posters and an example of what just happened in this thread in regards to emotion ruling over intellect:

When there are 25,000 terrorist attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam in ten years it's awfully hard not to roll your eyes at the 'religion of peace'.

Can you perhaps point me to the Breitbart link you got that stats from?

I can point you to this link which comes nowhere close to 25,000 Islamist terrorist attacks. It's somewhere in the 100's.

When you read Pew Research polls which show hundreds of millions of Muslims support execution for apostasy and blasphemy it's a little hard to grant the idea that we're only dealing with an occasional fanatic.

You didn't read Pew Research Polls. You read Breitbart and wordpress links that cherry picked numbers and generalized a whole group. If you actually read the Pew Research Polls, you would come to the conclusion that it's stupid to generalize and paint all Muslims with the same brush stroke. If you took a look at the polls, you would see the large variety in the way questions were responded to, in different Muslim countries and regions. You would also see that North Americans, Europeans, Syrians, Iranians and a large number of other areas were actually not questioned in this poll. These variables make a difference in how we should look at people. Putting a stamp on over a billion people and looking at them like they all think, feel and look the same is stupid. You just displayed an example of what was discussed: emotion and laziness ruling over intellect.

This is why it's difficult to debate reality with those with bigoted minds. Not only are they bigots, but they are also too lazy to look at the information. They prefer to become emotional and repeat comments made on wordpress sites and then throw in "Pew Research Polls" to give themselves credibility and to persuade others that their fears and comments have merit.

[Michael Hardner]

Would you prefer I go over the percentages of each of the countries listed ...

The way for us to establish if some factor (such as a person's race or religion) is the cause or a co-factor of a certain effect is: we can discuss it, and agree on a method to determine that, then test it. Of course, it's pretty difficult to perform such investigations objectively, for obvious reasons.

The way to NOT do it is to forage through statistics until we find one that supports a pre-held notion and then post it on here. That's the way you like to do it, by finding a poll that shows a regressive attitude by Muslims somewhere then tying that attitude to Muslims everywhere.

So those are the two main ways that I see us using statistics around here. I would prefer for us to use the first method.

You have more time to spend on here than me, so if you persist in using the second method, I will be unable to keep up with you.

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

A common theme that people have posted in here is that Muslims are somehow different in terms of their identification. That is a false mythology that echoes the 'concerns' of Americans when John F. Kennedy - a Catholic - ran for president in 1960.

In truth,

Most Canadian Muslims identify first as Muslim, and second as Canadian, but their pride in being Canadian matches the national average. When asked whether they identify first as Muslim or first as Canadian, 56 percent of Canadian Muslims chose Muslim first, while 23 percent chose Canadian first.

http://www.horizons.gc.ca/eng/content/muslims-canada-findings-2007-environics-survey

That means that the religion/nationality question is similar to Jewish Israelis or Christian Americans as well ... and as pointed out Canadian 'pride' (whatever that is) matches the national average.

Here's the PEW research on international attitudes:

I would ask you to post a response to this one, as to my mind you didn't do so quickly enough last time. In any case, this statistic can be used to prove that there's not much difference in nationalist identity in the religious group that you have targeted as being different than others.

[Guest]

Let's be clear.

I keep telling you I generally agree with you, but the mods hate it for some reason. I really don't get it.

Maybe I should disagree with you to keep them happy.

No, I tried, but I still agree.

Edit> I know, it's a bandwidth issue. I cut your post down to save a few bits.

Edit> If this iteration is also deleted, could someone just tell me why. Via PM (I know, I got one, but it didn't give me a reason) or on here.

I'm happy to abide by the rules if I could only know what they are.

Edited November 6, 2015 by bcsapper

[Guest]

I agree with a lot of what you have said in your post.

Here is a response I made to one of the posters and an example of what just happened in this thread in regards to emotion ruling over intellect:

Can you perhaps point me to the Breitbart link you got that stats from?

I can point you to this link which comes nowhere close to 25,000 Islamist terrorist attacks. It's somewhere in the 100's.

You didn't read Pew Research Polls. You read Breitbart and wordpress links that cherry picked numbers and generalized a whole group. If you actually read the Pew Research Polls, you would come to the conclusion that it's stupid to generalize and paint all Muslims with the same brush stroke. If you took a look at the polls, you would see the large variety in the way questions were responded to, in different Muslim countries and regions. You would also see that North Americans, Europeans, Syrians, Iranians and a large number of other areas were actually not questioned in this poll. These variables make a difference in how we should look at people. Putting a stamp on over a billion people and looking at them like they all think, feel and look the same is stupid. You just displayed an example of what was discussed: emotion and laziness ruling over intellect.

This is why it's difficult to debate reality with those with bigoted minds. Not only are they bigots, but they are also too lazy to look at the information. They prefer to become emotional and repeat comments made on wordpress sites and then throw in "Pew Research Polls" to give themselves credibility and to persuade others that their fears and comments have merit.

I suppose it is difficult to debate reality with bigoted minds. I would suggest it's also difficult to debate reality with closed minds. There is no argument, anywhere I've ever heard, to this, your comment. it's stupid to generalize and paint all Muslims with the same brush stroke.

Of course it is. The trick is in seeing the overlap. You have posted a list from Wikipedia that includes the following qualifications:

"This is an incomplete list"

"The following is a list of Islamist terrorist attacks that have received significant press coverage since 1980."

So we don't know how many there were, only that there were more than that list states. And we can be fairly sure it's a lot more than any other identifiable group has carried out. So I don't see any bigotry in pointing it out. I do see closed minds on the part of those who refuse to see. This is not an exercise in generalizing or painting.

And that said, that's terrorism. (I know that's an inadequate word) My problem with Islam is also with those adherents who would impose their laws based on the fictional ramblings of a supernatural being. The terrorists are criminals and can be described as such without much argument, even if there are differences over numbers and, in some cases, motive. Lawmakers who punish for crimes against a god are insane.

Edited November 6, 2015 by bcsapper