G Huxley Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 "So we kick out everyone who has a religion?" It would be a good start. "We figured this out a while back: It's called 'freedom of religion'."This was a mistake. It should be freedom from religion. "And freedom from religious discrimination."Then we must ban religious people from entering this country as all religion discriminates.
eyeball Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 As opposed to Islamic supremicists? No, I wouldn't want them either. If this was about supremacists in general I would have referred to hard-boiled conservatives - we're certainly not talking about progressives in either case. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
G Huxley Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) "No, I wouldn't want them either. "Then you better ban Islamic people from entering the country. What about Chinese supremecists? Hindu Supremecists? etc. etc. What about liberal/left wing supremecists? Edited May 15, 2016 by G Huxley
eyeball Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 Immigration policy should be used for the benefit of the country as a whole and not for the benefit of a political party. No. Immigration policy should be the same as policies that allow corporations to move around the planet, human beings are people too after all. Our global economy should be used for the benefit of our species as a whole and not for the benefit of a race. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
G Huxley Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) No. Immigration policy should be the same as policies that allow corporations to move around the planet, human beings are people too after all." Why base human policy on corporate policy? Our global economy should be used for the benefit of our species as a whole and not for the benefit of a race." You make the same mistake. You are speciesist. You think the world is here for humans and treat the rest of it like it is of no significance. Specism is a crime against the biosphere. Edited May 15, 2016 by G Huxley
jacee Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) Islam is not compatible with Western values like equality between sexes...freedom of speech...etc. You're free to pretend it is. Neither are some types of Christianity, Catholic for example. Nor those here who constantly whine about feminists ... whatever that 'religion' is. At one time "... the Jew did not fit their concept of what a Canadian should be." Do you want us to repeat that mistake against a different religion? Freedom of religion ... for some? As decided by whom? Only the Goddess decides. :-) . Edited May 15, 2016 by jacee
G Huxley Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) "Do you want us to repeat that mistake against a different religion?" Why was it a mistake? Deuteronomy 7: "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles[b] and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+7 I know if someone filled that out an immigration form I'd want them to enter my country. Edited May 15, 2016 by G Huxley
eyeball Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 Meh...Islam's track record speaks for itself. Not as much as it speaks to the mayhem that powerful people can cause with a human institution in general. Islam's signal in our species track record is virtually indistinct. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jacee Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 Why was it a mistake? Deuteronomy 7: "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nationsthe Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lords anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles[b] and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+7 I know if someone filled that out an immigration form I'd want them to enter my country. Some paranoid nutcase wrote that thinking he was somebody's God? Religion is a bizarre drug. But to each her own. .
eyeball Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) The 1960s happened. Not in the Islamic world where we pretty much prevented anything like the 60's from happening with the shit we started pulling in the 50's - one of the main root causes behind the need to absorb hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of refugees today. Edited May 15, 2016 by eyeball A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
G Huxley Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 Some paranoid nutcase wrote that thinking he was somebody's God? Religion is a bizarre drug. But to each her own. . Now you're starting to get it.
jacee Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 "So we kick out everyone who has a religion?" It would be a good start. "We figured this out a while back: It's called 'freedom of religion'." This was a mistake. It should be freedom from religion. "And freedom from religious discrimination." Then we must ban religious people from entering this country as all religion discriminates. You see how ridiculous it gets. .
G Huxley Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 Are they any more ridiculous than bringing in everyone who has a religion, allowing anyone to practice their religion even if its insane and destructive e.g. Deut 7 or any more ridiculous than allowing religious people to discriminate against nature?
eyeball Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 You make the same mistake. You are speciesist. You think the world is here for humans and treat the rest of it like it is of no significance. Specism is a crime against the biosphere. Context isn't exactly your forte is it? A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
G Huxley Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 The context is right on. To be pro spread of humanity, you are anti the rest of the biosphere.
GostHacked Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) The context is right on. To be pro spread of humanity, you are anti the rest of the biosphere. Eyeball has made it clear he is against extremism and the ideals that go along with it. Begin against spreading hate is actually being pro humanity. Eyeball has pushed back on all sorts of idiotic extremist ideals, and there are many examples of him doing that on MLW. I wonder if people actually read posts... sorry not just read them, but comprehend them as to not contort what the other person says. Edited May 15, 2016 by GostHacked
DogOnPorch Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 Ah ... Now we're going to judge immigrants on their views about gender roles too? I can tell you that quite a few posters here wouldn't qualify. :-) Once we apply all of your rules to deport all Canadians who don't qualify, there will be none of us left ... including you! . I'm for equality between sexes, free speech and liberal ideals. Islam is none of those things yet you choose to support it and its quest for dominance. Islam is a religion, btw. Not a 'race of people'. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Argus Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) The right doesn't want white people either, because they would ask for higher wage. This isn't a left or right issue. To a certain extent you are right, or were right, when big business had a bigger say in conservative politics. But their inability to donate large sums of cash has pretty much ended that time. And immigration numbers and types are largely driven by the Left. We see this now as Trudeau adjusts immigration to let in more non-skilled workers, more refugees, and more elderly immigrants. Edited May 15, 2016 by Argus "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 May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 Nasty nonsense, Argus. As usual, you are suggesting that immigration should be based on (white) race, rather than the point system, and that we shouldn't accept any refugees. As usual, your knee is jerking wildly without a thought in your head. I said nothing about race. It is a fact that immigrants from Europe and the US are more economically successful than immigrants from the third world. http://global-economics.ca/empin_immigrant_region.htm "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
cannuck Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 From a cold, hard look at immigration: anyone who lives their life by the strict dictates of some idiotic fairy tale is clearly a brick or two short of a load. When we already have a preponderance of citizens who follow ONE set of fairy tales, why invite conflict by importing a bunch of people who are so focused upon ANOTHER set of fairy tales? It would be so much better for the country to simply limit immigration to those with the intellectual capacity to deal with reality in a logical and reasonable manner
GostHacked Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) To a certain extent you are right. But immigration numbers and types are largely driven by the Left. We see this now as Trudeau adjusts immigration to let in more non-skilled workers, more refugees, and more elderly immigrants. Did we already forget about the foreign worker plan over the last decade under the Conservatives??? Edited May 15, 2016 by GostHacked
Argus Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 You want to choose by race? . No, by best immigrants, which means people who earn enough to pay taxes, and who fit in rather than insisting on staying separate. "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
GostHacked Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 No, by best immigrants, which means people who earn enough to pay taxes, and who fit in rather than insisting on staying separate. And we have elites putting their money in offshore accounts (Panama Papers) ,which seems to elude that they are not paying enough taxes either.
Argus Posted May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 Why judge people for immigration based on their religion at all? Most of us are agnostic. So you have no issue with bringing in hundreds of thousands of people who think gays should be imprisoned or killed and women must obey men? "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 May 15, 2016 Report Posted May 15, 2016 Did we already forget about the foreign worker plan over the last decade under the Conservatives??? I think that was their attempt to deal with the complaints of business, which wanted lots of cheap and obedient workers, and the rest of the party, which didn't want a bunch of low-rent third world immigrants settling here. "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
Recommended Posts