Immigration of religious fanatics

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, carepov said:

You are right, every preventable death is tragic.  But, in your example, I would not expect the world to start focusing on teaspoon violence.

We have limited ressources, why should we spend a disproportionate amount on Islamic terrorism compared to traffic accidents, gun violence.

The silliness is in those that over-inflate the significance of Islamic terrorism,

You're suggesting cutting out airport security, and spending the money on more traffic cops?

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I think its the other way around, or at least mutual.   Examples are Christmas and Easter, both pagan but appropriated by Christianity.  The practice of stoning was.mentioned in the bible and pre-dates Jesus.  FGM was also practiced 1000 years before Islam existed, and the Niqab is believed to have originally been used by Jews prior to being adopted by Muslims.

Its certainly unfortunate that Islam seems to have adopted some of the worst 'religious' traditions practiced throughout history.   And the conviction held by religious groups that God's approval requires clinging to tradition makes it difficult to make progress on eliminating these horrible practices.

 

Well, that's why I put 21st Century in there.

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You're suggesting cutting out airport security, and spending the money on more traffic cops?

 

Perhaps only that our current level of security is sufficient, spending money to add more security would be a waste.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

Perhaps only that our current level of security is sufficient, spending money to add more security would be a waste.

Security should match threat levels.

[Rue]

25 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Much was appropriated via war. It's not exclusive to Islam no matter how much you want to paint it that way.

If you go by the Old Testament my "people" were quite violent at one point and for that matter "God" was very angry and full of piss and vinegar.. Then of course we had the Crusades, etc. Christians had their share of wars that is for sure. Whether they tamed the savages they sent out to cleanse is anyone's guess. You'd have to ask native peoples or Africans. From what I gather there was a lot of genocide and violence and no much cleansing and soul saving,. So I tend to agree with you on that point. You look at history there are no shortage of brutal regimes who were inspired by "God" or humans referred to in God like terms.. The question is, have such societies evolved past their barbarism?

Is there such a thing as a peaceful society today we can use as a role model for others to follow? Are some of us truly more spiritually evolved than others  or are well all savage apes still?

I think that would be a source for another interesting thread but off the top of my head, I can't think of any people today who don't have a violent past...well maybe some of the Hari Krishna-they look to skinny to have done much.

.That said, I would prefer to live in  Canada or the USA or Western European nations or Australia or New Zealand before I would live in  Iran or Saudi Arabia or any Muslim nation thank you very much.

I will take my chances with a democratic Western nation. We all have our problems but its the best we have I think. Thanks you keep Russia, China, all Muslim nations. Its not racism that leads me to say that, just plain stark political reality and it fuels I would say most of the hostility behind the negative perceptions of Muslim societies and therefore their people.

We tend to identify people as members of packs and assign the entire pack common characteristics. Its what apes do. We still haven't evolved past that homo sapiens simeon behaviour pattern of being pack orientated and defined animals.

This topic is about a pack of apes feeling threatened by another pack of apes coming to mix with it.

For many of us we see huge differences in the two packs. I would suspect for those who are not apes, they would not find much difference in us.

I mean go ask any animal on this planet whether you are Muslim or not. All they would see is a polluting, violent, problematic species that has the unique characteristic of killing for reasons other than feeding itself.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Rue

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps only that our current level of security is sufficient, spending money to add more security would be a waste.

 

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

Security should match threat levels.

The problem is that the threat level will vary with the security level, and there is no way to tell how effective security measures are.  It's impossible to say how many lives, if any, have been saved by concrete barriers over the Christmas season. 

[GostHacked]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Security should match threat levels.

It should but what we see is way more security based on 'threats'.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, bcsapper said:

 

The problem is that the threat level will vary with the security level, and there is no way to tell how effective security measures are.  It's impossible to say how many lives, if any, have been saved by concrete barriers over the Christmas season. 

You can't prove a negative. Agreed.

Security should be high on travel arriving or going to high-risk areas.

The Swiss glee club probably requires lower security...

Importing the problem via immigration or refugees is just plain stupid.

[carepov]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You're suggesting cutting out airport security, and spending the money on more traffic cops?

 

Yes, within reason.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/false-sense-of-insecurity/

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

The problem is that the threat level will vary with the security level, and there is no way to tell how effective security measures are.  It's impossible to say how many lives, if any, have been saved by concrete barriers over the Christmas season. 

If murder by spouse happens 3 times a week and murder by terrorists happens 3 times per year, where would adding resources save more lives?    

 

[carepov]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Importing the problem via immigration or refugees is just plain stupid.

The point is that there is no "problem".

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If murder by spouse happens 3 times a week and murder by terrorists happens 3 times per year, where would adding resources save more lives?    

 

So take those airport security folks and post them in homes?  How do you pick the homes?  What about breaks?  What if someone murders their spouse when the former airport security person is on the toilet?

 

Edit>  Seriously though, we could take every cent we spend and devote it all to number one on the list, whatever it is.  Then everyone who dies from something else is just told that the numbers for their survival simply didn't add up. 

The reason the numbers don't currently add up might be because of the measures taken.

Edited December 28, 2016 by bcsapper

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, carepov said:

Yes, within reason.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/false-sense-of-insecurity/

Ah yes, lightning.  The problem is that there is no idea of what effect any cost transferring will have.  No-one knows what has been prevented in the last 20 years. 

Certainl savings could be made by allowing more intrusive surveillance, and allowing longer times a person can be held in custody on suspicion.  Such things as that.  Any savings could be spent on lightning rods.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If murder by spouse happens 3 times a week and murder by terrorists happens 3 times per year, where would adding resources save more lives?    

 

According to this map, which I just googled, veracity unknown, there were 15889 murders by terrorists this year.  I don't know how many spouses were murdered.  But if they weren't murdered in airports or markets or such, it's difficult to see how they could have been saved.

http://storymaps.esri.com/stories/2016/terrorist-attacks/

Edited December 28, 2016 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

According to this map, which I just googled, veracity unknown, there were 15889 murders by terrorists this year.  I don't know how many spouses were murdered.  But if they weren't murdered in airports or markets or such, it's difficult to see how they could have been saved.

http://storymaps.esri.com/stories/2016/terrorist-attacks/

My mistake, thought the discussion was still centered on Canada, did not realize it had moved worldwide.

Anyway, more resources on enforcing restraining orders against aggressors, places for women/men at risk to go, outreach for women/men who believe they are trapped would all help save lives lost due to domestic abuse in Canada.

Worldwide, it would be logical if Middle Eastern and African countries more at risk of terrorism spent more on security than Canada.   Also would help to spend.money on eradicating illiteracy so people could read the Koran for themselves instead of relying on Fatwas and interpretations by possible radicals.

Edited December 28, 2016 by dialamah

[Argus]

2 hours ago, carepov said:

I think that the most significant root cause of most people's fear of Islamic terrorism is our inability to comprehend large numbers and to put the

I wold suggest you go and read the OP and find out what this topic is about before further posting.

[carepov]

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Ah yes, lightning.  The problem is that there is no idea of what effect any cost transferring will have.  No-one knows what has been prevented in the last 20 years. 

Certainl savings could be made by allowing more intrusive surveillance, and allowing longer times a person can be held in custody on suspicion.  Such things as that.  Any savings could be spent on lightning rods.

It is you that has turned silly.

Seriously, if the goal was to prevent deaths worldwide a good starting list would be:

Given the budget restraints, they found 16 investments worthy of investment (in descending order of desirability):^[3]

1. Bundled micronutrient interventions to fight hunger and improve education
2. Expanding the Subsidy for Malaria Combination Treatment
3. Expanded Childhood Immunization Coverage
4. Deworming of Schoolchildren, to improve educational and health outcomes
5. Expanding Tuberculosis Treatment
6. R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change
7. Investing in Effective Early Warning Systems to protect populations against natural disaster
8. Strengthening Surgical Capacity
9. Hepatitis B Immunization
10. Using Low‐Cost Drugs in the case of Acute Heart Attacks in poorer nations (these are already available in developed countries)
11. Salt Reduction Campaign to reduce chronic disease
12. Geo‐Engineering R&D into the feasibility of solar radiation management
13. Conditional Cash Transfers for School Attendance
14. Accelerated HIV Vaccine R&D
15. Extended Field Trial of Information Campaigns on the Benefits From Schooling
16. Borehole and Public Hand Pump Intervention

ttp://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/how-much-have-global-problems-cost-world/outcome

Here in Canada, an issue that I think needs more attention is metal health.  This can save lives through reduced violence, suicide and also improve quality of life.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

My mistake, thought the discussion was still centered on Canada, did not realize it had moved worldwide.

Anyway, more resources on enforcing restraining orders against aggressors, places for women/men at risk to go, outreach for women/men who believe they are trapped would all help save lives lost due to domestic abuse.   

I agree.  I would advocate for great increases in those resources. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

There are differences. It's not a religion that's the enemy, it's a culture.

It is the culture spawned by and sustained by the religion.

[carepov]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

I wold suggest you go and read the OP and find out what this topic is about before further posting.

I did.  My argument is that your concerns are invalid. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, carepov said:

It is you that has turned silly.

Seriously, if the goal was to prevent deaths worldwide a good starting list would be:

Given the budget restraints, they found 16 investments worthy of investment (in descending order of desirability):^[3]

1. Bundled micronutrient interventions to fight hunger and improve education
2. Expanding the Subsidy for Malaria Combination Treatment
3. Expanded Childhood Immunization Coverage
4. Deworming of Schoolchildren, to improve educational and health outcomes
5. Expanding Tuberculosis Treatment
6. R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change
7. Investing in Effective Early Warning Systems to protect populations against natural disaster
8. Strengthening Surgical Capacity
9. Hepatitis B Immunization
10. Using Low‐Cost Drugs in the case of Acute Heart Attacks in poorer nations (these are already available in developed countries)
11. Salt Reduction Campaign to reduce chronic disease
12. Geo‐Engineering R&D into the feasibility of solar radiation management
13. Conditional Cash Transfers for School Attendance
14. Accelerated HIV Vaccine R&D
15. Extended Field Trial of Information Campaigns on the Benefits From Schooling
16. Borehole and Public Hand Pump Intervention

ttp://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/how-much-have-global-problems-cost-world/outcome

Here in Canada, an issue that I think needs more attention is metal health.  This can save lives through reduced violence, suicide and also improve quality of life.

It was your link that introduced lightning.

But seriously, sure.  There are loads of ways lives can be saved.  The problem with talking about security is there is no way of knowing (and that is No Way, regardless of what any statistics might purport to show) how many lives are saved by it. 

[Argus]

38 minutes ago, carepov said:

The point is that there is no "problem".

Your point is incorrect. Just because you don't think it's a problem doesn't mean others do.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, carepov said:

I did.  My argument is that your concerns are invalid. 

You clearly did not. The OP said not one word about terrorism, but your entire post was about terrorism in the world and why we needn't be worried about it.

[Argus]

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

My mistake, thought the discussion was still centered on Canada, did not realize it had moved worldwide.

It has not. This line of discussion is simply off topic.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It was your link that introduced lightning.

But seriously, sure.  There are loads of ways lives can be saved.  The problem with talking about security is there is no way of knowing (and that is No Way, regardless of what any statistics might purport to show) how many lives are saved by it. 

This has exactly what to do with the immigration of religious people with cultural values which are opposed to that of Canada's secular society?