eyeball Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 2 hours ago, bcsapper said: By all means, fill your boots. At what point though, does taking revenge on someone ... a bad thing? What revenge? Muslims are fighting against ongoing oppression that's fuelled by outside interference. When did fighting oppression become a bad thing? Quote And when do the sectarian killings stop being the fault of the west? I suspect if the west's diddling with all the sectors it's molesting stops that things will improve. Quote At some point, those who removed the shackles become less to blame than the unshackled, surely? What the hell are you are talking about? Just respond to what I said and stop wasting everyone's time trying to weasel the deviancy of our foreign policies out from under the topic. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
dialamah Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 32 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I think the goal of the OP, and I'm just going by the title here, because I really had no idea which thread I was arguing in, is to prevent the immigration of religious fanatics. I assume it's prevent. It doesn't actually go into it that deeply. Yes, ostensibly that is so. But then throughout the thread, the author focuses almost exclusively on Muslims. I think that's telling. Quote
Guest Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, eyeball said: What revenge? Muslims are fighting against ongoing oppression that's fuelled by outside interference. When did fighting oppression become a bad thing? Driving a truck into a market full of shoppers is fighting oppression? I guess, if you want to call it that. I might differ. What about blowing up a bunch of people who are exactly like you, except for some dispute over a succession over a millenium ago. Kill them, to fight oppression? I suspect if the west's diddling with all the sectors it's molesting stops that things will improve. Sunnis will suddenly love Shiites, and vice versa, or there will come upon them a Strongman who will kill the lot of them if they don't behave? What the hell are you are talking about? Just respond to what I said and stop wasting everyone's time trying to weasel the deviancy of our foreign policies out from under the topic. You obviously know exactly what I'm talking about. Edited January 2, 2017 by bcsapper Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal Quote
Guest Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, dialamah said: Yes, ostensibly that is so. But then throughout the thread, the author focuses almost exclusively on Muslims. I think that's telling. How many other religious fanatics are there? If you know of any trying to emmigrate, speak up and we can complain about them, and discuss ways of stopping them. I'm game to prevent them all from coming in. Edited January 2, 2017 by bcsapper Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal Quote
eyeball Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, bcsapper said: You obviously know exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, a different topic than western diddling - which you're avoiding no more competently or ethically than you do when you're defending Trump's sexual assaults. You're as transparent as thin air. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: Yes, a different topic than western diddling - which you're avoiding no more competently or ethically than you do when you're defending Trump's sexual assaults. You're as transparent as thin air. It wasn't, I'm not, and I didn't. And again I'm not, but that last is a matter of opinion. You're welcome to yours, no matter how silly. Argue the points, if you want. Edited January 2, 2017 by bcsapper Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal Quote
dialamah Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 30 minutes ago, bcsapper said: How many other religious fanatics are there? If you know of any trying to emmigrate, speak up and we can complain about them, and discuss ways of stopping them. I'm game to prevent them all from coming in. Aside from the stock answer of "anyone religious is a fanatic", I really can't say. Anyway, I'm pretty sure there are various definitions of fanatic: judging by Argus' comments, anyone who disapproved of gays would be too fanatical to let into the country, but that definition of fanaticism would have to include an awful lot of people who already live in Canada. Are they really fanatics, as long as they keep their disapproval to themselves? Is fanaticism an belief or a willingness to act on that belief? I really don't know. Quote
Guest Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, dialamah said: Aside from the stock answer of "anyone religious is a fanatic", I really can't say. Anyway, I'm pretty sure there are various definitions of fanatic: judging by Argus' comments, anyone who disapproved of gays would be too fanatical to let into the country, but that definition of fanaticism would have to include an awful lot of people who already live in Canada. Are they really fanatics, as long as they keep their disapproval to themselves? Is fanaticism an belief or a willingness to act on that belief? I really don't know. I do. There's nothing wrong with disapproval. There's nothing wrong with any opinion, whatsoever, as long as one doesn't act on it in any way. Edit> and by that I mean there's nothing wrong with holding any opinion. The opinion itself might stink. Edited January 2, 2017 by bcsapper Quote
Goddess Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, dialamah said: Is fanaticism an belief or a willingness to act on that belief? I really don't know. Quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanaticism Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or with an obsessive enthusiasm. Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim".[1] The fanatic displays very strict standards and little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions. In his book Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk, Neil Postman states that "the key to all fanatical beliefs is that they are self-confirming....(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are 'false', but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false."[2] The behavior of a fan with overwhelming enthusiasm for a given subject is differentiated from the behavior of a fanatic by the fanatic's violation of prevailing social norms. Though the fan's behavior may be judged as odd or eccentric, it does not violate such norms.[3] A fanatic differs from a crank, in that a crank is defined as a person who holds a position or opinion which is so far from the norm as to appear ludicrous and/or probably wrong, such as a belief in a Flat Earth. In contrast, the subject of the fanatic's obsession may be "normal", such as an interest in religion or politics, except that the scale of the person's involvement, devotion, or obsession with the activity or cause is abnormal or disproportionate to the average. It appears that it is the ACTING on extreme beliefs. Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
dialamah Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I do. There's nothing wrong with disapproval. There's nothing wrong with any opinion, whatsoever, as long as one doesn't act on it in any way. Then the only point of a screening test would be to determine if a person is willing/able to act violently, really for any reason - not just religious ones. Screening for 'values' seems irrelevant if the person isn't going to even try to impose his/her own values on anyone else. Edited January 2, 2017 by dialamah Quote
Guest Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 Just now, dialamah said: Then the only point of a screening test would be to determine if a person is willing/able to act violently, really for any reason - not just religious ones. Screening for 'values' seems irrelevant if the person isn't going to impose his/her own values on anyone else. I don't agree with screening. People lie. Just kick 'em back out if they don't behave, that's all. Quote
dialamah Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I don't agree with screening. People lie. Just kick 'em back out if they don't behave, that's all. Oddly, if we could effectively and fairly screen people for violence, I'd be ok with that. Edited to add: Everybody, not just immigrants and refugees. Kicking them back out for misbehaving - I'm torn on that, to be honest. I think it's a good point that if you are a Canadian, you are a Canadian and should be subject to Canadian laws. On the other hand, if you have come to the country with mayhem on your mind, and Canadian citizenship or permanent residency was key to carrying out that mayhem, ok - go back from whence you came. Edited January 2, 2017 by dialamah Quote
eyeball Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) 38 minutes ago, bcsapper said: It wasn't, I'm not, and I didn't. And again I'm not, but that last is a matter of opinion. You're welcome to yours, no matter how silly. It was, you are and you did. And again you are and likely always will, that is a matter of fact. When I present you with an opinion you'll get the thanks you deserve. Quote Argue the points, if you want. Dodge mine all you want, it won't go away and neither will I. Edited January 3, 2017 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 Just now, eyeball said: It was, you are and you did. And again you are and likely always will, that is a matter of fact. When I present you with an opinion you'll get the thanks you deserve. Dodge mine all you want, it won't go away and neither will I. Pantomime. Quote
Argus Posted January 3, 2017 Author Report Posted January 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Omni said: And I would say it's pretty naive to think that if we concocted some sort of Kellie Leitch style list "Canadian Values" questions that even those who may have some "non Canadian Values" would be stupid enough not to fake their answers, so a waste of time. I think that the majority of the people who want to come to Canada do so because they respect and want to become part of the greater community. Wait, I thought you said they already WERE being screened, and now you're saying well, it would be a waste of time. Which is it? 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 January 3, 2017 Author Report Posted January 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Smallc said: That doesn't seem to be correct: Of course it's correct. Do you think Canadian law applies to people in foreign countries? It doesn't. 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
eyeball Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 17 minutes ago, dialamah said: Aside from the stock answer of "anyone religious is a fanatic", I really can't say. Anyway, I'm pretty sure there are various definitions of fanatic: judging by Argus' comments, anyone who disapproved of gays would be too fanatical to let into the country, but that definition of fanaticism would have to include an awful lot of people who already live in Canada. Are they really fanatics, as long as they keep their disapproval to themselves? Is fanaticism an belief or a willingness to act on that belief? I really don't know. I'd say the denial of western interference and the degree to which it has destroyed much of the Muslim world is bloody fanatical. At it's core fanaticism is as much an abject refusal to face reality as anything it replaces that reality with. Cue the old you-do-it-to argumentia in 3...2...1.... Anyone know the Latin name for that fallacy? It's bullshit in any case. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted January 3, 2017 Author Report Posted January 3, 2017 2 hours ago, dialamah said: Consider this: regardless of where you are in the world, there are extremist groups who enslave women/girls/children as part of their ideology, whatever it is. Please name the extremist groups in Sweden, France and Spain which enslave women and girls as part of their ideology. 2 hours ago, dialamah said: But people who choose to come here are already open to more than what they've known all their life; they have to be, or they'd never leave their country. By definition, they are already among the most progressive of their culture. Evidence? The people who left the middle east for Europe were the most progressive in their culture? That hasn't stopped antisemitism from skyrocketing in Europe, hasn't stopped the rape and sexual assault of women, and hasn't stopped terrorism. Consider. All over the world on New Years Eve tens of thousands of security people were out with machineguns, roads were being blocked off with heavy trucks and concrete blocks, all because of.... what group again? If there were no Muslims in Europe, none of that would have been necessary. If there were no Muslims in Canada, the police in Ottawa wouldn't have needed to carry automatic rifles and block off the streets around parliament hill the other night with concrete barriers. Your suggestion there is nothing unique about Islam is ludicrous. 2 hours ago, dialamah said: The OP's goal to deprive these people of the opportunity to rethink their cultural beliefs, to increase the pool of knowledge to send back to their countries is a mistake, as far as I'm concerned. But screening them would only deprive the ones who haven't rethought their cultural beliefs, who are firmly devoted to the harsh intolerance of Islam. After all, that's the purpose of screening them. 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 January 3, 2017 Author Report Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Omni said: The thread title is loaded from the outset. It assumes that immigrants or refugees are religious fanatics. The screening that occurs is a guard against that. And of course refugees immigrate if they are successful during the screening process so therefore become immigrants. I'll take that as you lacking the honest to admit you're wrong. And if we assume that all immigrants from extremist areas like the middle east are religious fanatics then the proper response is to accept NONE. No need to screen. Edited January 3, 2017 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 January 3, 2017 Author Report Posted January 3, 2017 2 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said: Here you go if you want a cite of immigrants being screen for their health: Much more information is available Panel Members’ Handbook 2013 Sorry, but it says no such thing. It says their health is checked (for communicable diseases). It does not say that poor health would screen them out. As an earlier cite already showed, a number of the Syrian refugees in Canada have very expensive medical issues, including physical and mental handicaps. 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
dialamah Posted January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 3 hours ago, Argus said: They're not Canadians and don't live here. They are not entitled to any of the rights of Canadian citizens. And our values don't prohibit examining theirs before letting them in. Two thirds of Canadians agree with that. Which makes what our values say on the subject self-evident. Two thirds of Canadians haven't thought it through. They just think it sounds good, kind of like a coca-cola jingle. Anyway, as I said I would, I've given this whole thing some serious thought. I've even started a thread about it; let's see just how such screening could work, in real life, and not in some pandering political sound-bite. Quote
Argus Posted January 3, 2017 Author Report Posted January 3, 2017 1 hour ago, dialamah said: Yes, i do point out inaccuracies in right-wing, fear-mongering sources. Nope. Nothing I've posted was inaccurate nor have you shown it to be. What you try to do is to pretend it doesn't matter, that nothing in the Muslim world is any worse than it is in the West, be it womens rights or religiously inspired violence. 1 hour ago, dialamah said: Just because I don't want to deprive people of a chance to be better doesn't mean I don't understand the problems that exist where these people come from. Our immigration system is not designed as a charity to give everyone in the Muslim world, or elsewhere, a 'chance to be better'. It's an expensive system costing billions of dollars and is designed to acquire for Canada the best immigrants. Apparently you take issue with that, perhaps because you hate Canada. I don't know. My only purpose in opposing the importation of religious fanatics is to protect Canada from the violence which is part and parcel of their societies and cultures. I asked before and no one has addressed it. Given immigrants from the middle east are the least economically succesful of all immigrants, and given their harshly unCanadian social views, why should we be bringing so many of them here as opposed to the much more economically successful and culturally similar immigrants from Europe? How is this in Canada's interests? 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 January 3, 2017 Author Report Posted January 3, 2017 27 minutes ago, dialamah said: Then the only point of a screening test would be to determine if a person is willing/able to act violently, really for any reason - not just religious ones. Screening for 'values' seems irrelevant if the person isn't going to even try to impose his/her own values on anyone else. As I have already pointed out, the issue for me is the growing number of people with harshly unCanadian views. As that population grows their influence, including political influence, will grow apace. Given the Muslim population is doubling every 7-10 years, and that according to surveys they are becoming more, not less religious, I think that is a danger 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
Argus Posted January 3, 2017 Author Report Posted January 3, 2017 27 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I don't agree with screening. People lie. Just kick 'em back out if they don't behave, that's all. What happens if so many of them come here that they change the laws to be more ... friendly to their views? 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 January 3, 2017 Report Posted January 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Argus said: As I have already pointed out, the issue for me is the growing number of people with harshly unCanadian views. As that population grows their influence, including political influence, will grow apace. Given the Muslim population is doubling every 7-10 years, and that according to surveys they are becoming more, not less religious, I think that is a danger to Canada. The danger is only in your mind and spreading hatred towards Muslims. 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
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.