Jump to content

How do we force immigrants to assimilate?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

 

Sikhs fought for the allies, and very well,  wearing turbans. If it's that important to them then they can ride motorbikes with them on as far as I'm concerned.

As far as ICBC rates because of helmets, it's not like having no helmet means that you'll probably get a long-term injury and tons of money. It usually means that you're dead and you get nothing. 

You obviously don't ride a motorcycle, and miss the point that the 'tons of money' paid out is from increased premiums paid by the folks that have no choice in picking an insurance carrier.

Having fought with turbans on has nothing to do with 'religious freedom' trumping a safety issue that is avoidable. Especially when head injury payouts increase the premiums of common sense DOT helmeted riders.

Your answers just aren't relevant . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nefarious Banana said:

You obviously don't ride a motorcycle, and miss the point that the 'tons of money' paid out is from increased premiums paid by the folks that have no choice in picking an insurance carrier.

Having fought with turbans on has nothing to do with 'religious freedom' trumping a safety issue that is avoidable. Especially when head injury payouts increase the premiums of common sense DOT helmeted riders.

Your answers just aren't relevant . . . .

So include a waiver on motorcycle insurance policies for riders who wear turbans.  You choose to wear a turban without a helmet on top, you cannot make a head injury insurance claim.  Done.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Argus said:

India is the most racist country in the world, from the studies and comparisons I've seen.

TBH, I was just over at some friends' place yesterday and their kids were talking about how openly & horribly racist the Punjabi students are at their school. I heard that from my step-daughters as well when they went to Tamanawis a few years back but they are white, and they had a separate agenda for getting out of that school so I didn't put much stock in it (they did change schools). 

It's worth noting that India's neighbour, Pakistan, is also considered to be the most religiously-bigoted country on earth too, so maybe evidence is mounting. But honestly, how different are the races in India? Their skin colour varies by about 1% and all their DNA is basically identical. Are you sure that you're talking about racism or do you mean religious bigotry?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Goddess said:

Google Graham Steins.

I get it. He was murdered by a group of religious bigots (not racists), but a group of 30 Hindus in a country that probably had at least 700,000,000 Hindus at that time isn't proof of anything imo. Side note: there still isn't a "Hindus-only" nation on this planet and there are a billion of them now. How bigoted are they, really?

People in Pakistan are getting the death penalty, FROM THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT - NOT JUST A SMALL ANGRY MOB, for talking about Christianity.

When a country's federal government is handing out death sentences that are purely based on bigotry, instead of small mobs, that's bigotry on an entirely different level. It's actually several orders of magnitude higher. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

So include a waiver on motorcycle insurance policies for riders who wear turbans.  You choose to wear a turban without a helmet on top, you cannot make a head injury insurance claim.  Done.  

A better idea would be to insist that all people follow the law.  There is no "right" to ride a motorcycle.  If you want to ride one, put a helmet on.  If you don't want to put a helmet on, don't ride one.  It's pretty basic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

t's worth noting that India's neighbour, Pakistan, is also considered to be the most religiously-bigoted country on earth too, so maybe evidence is mounting. But honestly, how different are the races in India? Their skin colour varies by about 1% and all their DNA is basically identical. Are you sure that you're talking about racism or do you mean religious bigotry?

India's whole caste system is based on skin colour, which varies quite a bit more than that. The lighter the skin, the higher caste you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

You obviously don't ride a motorcycle, and miss the point that the 'tons of money' paid out is from increased premiums paid by the folks that have no choice in picking an insurance carrier. . . . .

Can you cite some sources referring to these higher payouts by people wearing turbans? 

Quote

Having fought with turbans on has nothing to do with 'religious freedom' trumping a safety issue that is avoidable. Especially when head injury payouts increase the premiums of common sense DOT helmeted riders.

Your answers just aren't relevant

Wearing a helmet won't stop a direct hit from a bullet but it can easily save a person from death or serious injury by shrapnel, falling debris, etc. They risked their lives to fight without helmets alongside of us in the WWs, I'm not bothered by their right to ride without helmets, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Argus said:

India's whole caste system is based on skin colour, which varies quite a bit more than that. The lighter the skin, the higher caste you are.

Are you referring to "India's caste system" or the Hindu caste system?

Lighter skin, traditionally in sun-baked climates, isn't the cause of elevated social status but a direct result of living indoors. The poorest people are outside grubbing around for scraps, the uber-wealthy are inside getting massages and having grapes fed to them. In between that you have various levels of labourers, foremen, supervisors, upper management, etc, etc.

Within the Hindu caste system people's entire bloodlines are banished to the lowest form of existence and they just live with it because it's part of their religion. It's insanity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2019 at 8:35 AM, Goddess said:

Google Graham Steins.

 

On 5/17/2019 at 9:39 AM, Argus said:

India is the most racist country in the world, from the studies and comparisons I've seen.

Further to my earlier replies to your posts, I wanna post this little nugget of information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh

Quote

Manmohan Singh (Punjabi: [mənˈmoːɦən ˈsɪ́ŋɡ] (About this soundlisten); born 26 September 1932) is an Indian economist and politician who served as the Prime Minister of India from 2004 to 2014. The first Sikh in office, Singh was also the first prime minister since Jawaharlal Nehru to be re-elected after completing a full five-year term.

In a country with just a hair under 1 Billion Hindus and a religious makeup of; 80% Hindu, 14% Muslim, 2% Christian and only 1.7% Sikh, a Sikh was elected twice in a row as PM.

 

Mic drop!

 

I was gonna stop there, but honestly, I think that people need to take a closer look at the folks who are dissing India. I think it has more to do with their own agenda than anything that the majority of people in India are doing.

I'm not Indian, or Sikh, or Hindu and I don't have any of those guys in my family or married into my family. But if you look at the view from 50,000 feet it's had to say those are the "bad guys".

 

Yeah I know this is off-topic, I don't recall being the one who directed the discussion here.

 

 

 

 

Edited by WestCanMan
Added awesomeness, as if it needed any.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Mic drop!

First of all, let me express how irritating and obnoxious that stupid ass phrase is. 

Second, it seems you are completely confused about what racism is. I suggest you get a dictionary and read it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.71d779fe0891

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/least-racist-countries/

https://businesstech.co.za/news/lifestyle/116644/the-most-racist-countries-in-the-world/

 

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

 

Further to my earlier replies to your posts, I wanna post this little nugget of information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh

In a country with just a hair under 1 Billion Hindus and a religious makeup of; 80% Hindu, 14% Muslim, 2% Christian and only 1.7% Sikh, a Sikh was elected twice in a row as PM.

 

Mic drop!

 

I was gonna stop there, but honestly, I think that people need to take a closer look at the folks who are dissing India. I think it has more to do with their own agenda than anything that the majority of people in India are doing.

I'm not Indian, or Sikh, or Hindu and I don't have any of those guys in my family or married into my family. But if you look at the view from 50,000 feet it's had to say those are the "bad guys".

 

Yeah I know this is off-topic, I don't recall being the one who directed the discussion here.

 

 

 

 

Sooooo can people marry outside their caste in the smaller town yet? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

All 3 of your sources reference the same survey. The third one just posed another question alongside it which, answered honestly, would yield the same answer from everyone on earth. 

Quote

The second survey was more direct, asking whether respondents had seen or experienced racism. All answers that we [sic] not a direct “no not at all”, were considered as a check next to racism.

So you're basing your theory on one survey which might just be garbage, and a second one that certainly is.

 

Here's the thing Argus. I made an indisputable observation. It was based on the most honest measure imaginable (how people cast their secret ballot), of the entire population (a federal election). You're pimping one survey which certainly would have sampled a minuscule percentage of the 1 billion+ Indians, and a silly question.

I know that my proof involved the topic of religious bigotry, while yours was based on racial bigotry, and I can see how you could claim that yours is on-topic and mine isn't. Here's the rub. In order for you (your survey) to be correct and my proof to be wrong, then Indians would have to simultaneously be 1) the most racially-bigoted country on earth and 2) by far the least religiously-bigoted country on earth. 

In my opinion, that's not even remotely possible.

It's far more sensible to draw the conclusion that your survey was either; incorrectly interpreted, poorly contrived, intentionally manipulated or otherwise flawed/corrupted.

 

Mic drop digitally remastered.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Sooooo can people marry outside their caste in the smaller town yet? 

I doubt it. But again, it's within their own religion. If they want to have this ridiculous hierarchy within their own religion, it's their own personal choice to do so.

It's only religious bigotry when you inflict your own religious beliefs on someone with a different core beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2019 at 9:38 AM, Argus said:

I'm not saying we should ban Sikhs from wearing turbans, just that I think it's goofy. And anyone who won't cut their hair and wraps it in a turban every damn day of their life has a screw loose, as far as I'm concerned.

How would Argus force immigrants to assimilate?

Nastily.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Can you cite some sources referring to these higher payouts by to people wearing turbans? 

Wearing a helmet won't stop a direct hit from a bullet but it can easily save a person from death or serious injury by shrapnel, falling debris, etc. They risked their lives to fight without helmets alongside of us in the WWs, I'm not bothered by their right to ride without helmets, period.

Sadly, your insistence on WW contributions of 70 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with a segment of our population that's exempt from a law that applies to the rest of the population.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

All 3 of your sources reference the same survey. The third one just posed another question alongside it which, answered honestly, would yield the same answer from everyone on earth. 

So you're basing your theory on one survey which might just be garbage, and a second one that certainly is.

I'm basing it on a multitude of things, among them that ones importance in India is generally related to the shade of skin you're wearing. Dark sin = low caste - lighter skin = high caste. You don't have to go far to find people who have been to India, or are from India, who will agree. Or to read articles about Indian racism.

https://thewire.in/rights/racism-in-india

Quote

Here's the thing Argus. I made an indisputable observation.

An indisputably dumb observation. Unless you think Sikhs are a different race.

Quote

I know that my proof involved the topic of religious bigotry, while yours was based on racial bigotry, and I can see how you could claim that yours is on-topic and mine isn't. Here's the rub. In order for you (your survey) to be correct and my proof to be wrong, then Indians would have to simultaneously be 1) the most racially-bigoted country on earth and 2) by far the least religiously-bigoted country on earth. 

In my opinion, that's not even remotely possible.

So your claim to a lack of religious bigotry is that a Sikh got elected once. I'm sure you'll next tell us there is no misogyny in India because a woman was once elected prime minister.

And that mike drop shit always reminds me of a spoiled, sulky girl flouncing out of a room when she can't get her way.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

 

So your claim to a lack of religious bigotry is that a Sikh got elected once. I'm sure you'll next tell us there is no misogyny in India because a woman was once elected prime minister.

 

Well, at least we know there's no racism in America any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Sadly, your insistence on WW contributions of 70 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with a segment of our population that's exempt from a law that applies to the rest of the population.

 

It proves that they're not just whistling Dixie. They're serious about their religious obligation to wear a turban. If their religion is that serious about it then I can respect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I'm basing it on a multitude of things, among them that ones importance in India is generally related to the shade of skin you're wearing. Dark sin = low caste - lighter skin = high caste. You don't have to go far to find people who have been to India, or are from India, who will agree. Or to read articles about Indian racism.

https://thewire.in/rights/racism-in-india

An indisputably dumb observation. Unless you think Sikhs are a different race.

So your claim to a lack of religious bigotry is that a Sikh got elected once. I'm sure you'll next tell us there is no misogyny in India because a woman was once elected prime minister.

And that mike drop shit always reminds me of a spoiled, sulky girl flouncing out of a room when she can't get her way.

Honestly all that your reply says is that you can't comprehend what I posted. And he was elected twice fwiw.

It's not even the tiniest bit rational to believe that the most extremely unbiased country on earth religiously is the most biased country in the earth by race. That just doesn't add up, and you just have one survey by two dudes to back your claim, plus this new "he said, she said" article. Lmao Argus. You make the weakest case in history for racial bigotry in India. I make the strongest argument against religious intolerance in the history of the earth in India. You need something epic. Something you can at least hang your hat on.  I have TWO federal elections to act as proof, and you even named a 3rd one yourself to prove that they're not even gender-biased. LMAO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's not even the tiniest bit rational to believe that the most extremely unbiased country on earth religiously

 

Obviously you have never had any dealings with a Cow Protection Group!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Honestly all that your reply says is that you can't comprehend what I posted. And he was elected twice fwiw.

It's not even the tiniest bit rational to believe that the most extremely unbiased country on earth religiously

The most extremely unbiased country on earth religiously is India? Are you on drugs? This is a country that regularly has riots between religious groups. Sometimes they burn down whole villages. But don't worry, they're not the worst in the world for religious intolerance, only the fourth worst in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India

So India is nowhere remotely close to being unbiased in terms of religion, is nowhere near being a paradise of female empowerment, and is the most racist country on earth.

 

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Argus said:

The most extremely unbiased country on earth religiously is India? Are you on drugs? This is a country that regularly has riots between religious groups. Sometimes they burn down whole villages. But don't worry, they're not the worst in the world for religious intolerance, only the fourth worst in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India

So India is nowhere remotely close to being unbiased in terms of religion, is nowhere near being a paradise of female empowerment, and is the most racist country on earth.

 

Your own article says that 130 people per year are killed in India. Their population is 33x ours, and we had 13 deaths from islamic terrorism in 2018. They need to have 437 deaths per year to keep pace with us. They’re at 1/3 of our pace. Sucks to be us. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Your own article says that 130 people per year are killed in India. Their population is 33x ours, and we had 13 deaths from islamic terrorism in 2018. They need to have 437 deaths per year to keep pace with us. They’re at 1/3 of our pace. Sucks to be us. 

We had 13 deaths from Islamic terrorism last year in Canada? 

You are aware of how incredibly corrupt the Indians are, right? Their police often fail to report murders properly. Someone might suggest they do something about it if they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Argus said:

We had 13 deaths from Islamic terrorism last year in Canada? 

You are aware of how incredibly corrupt the Indians are, right? Their police often fail to report murders properly. Someone might suggest they do something about it if they did.

I was referring to the murders from religious bigotry.

In a country with 1.4 billion people and so much diversity of religion it's to be expected that some bad shit happens. 130 murders is pretty close to zero murders if you look around the rest of the planet...

There are only 6 billion people on earth, that's only 4x the population of India. Out of those 6 billion people there should only be 4x as many religious-bigotry-motivated murders as there are in India, or 520 murders. 

Do you think that there are only 520 murders on the rest of the planet due to religious bigotry over the course of an average year? There are anywhere from 150-200 terrorist attacks PER MONTH. That's 1,800 - 2,400 terrorist attacks per year. Many individual attacks have killed more than 130 people. 

India is pretty tame imo. Especially if you consider that next door, in Pakistan, people are still getting the death penalty handed down by the federal government for promoting other religions.

People love to hate Hindus. It's still politically correct to do so. I think that they deserve a lot of credit for being, for the most part, extremely tolerant. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2019 at 11:54 AM, bcsapper said:

A better idea would be to insist that all people follow the law.  There is no "right" to ride a motorcycle.  If you want to ride one, put a helmet on.  If you don't want to put a helmet on, don't ride one.  It's pretty basic.

Why do you feel the state should have a nanny policy that makes people wear something that protects them if it means they have to compromise a very important religious practice.?  Let them decide and remove the government/company liability if they choose not to wear a helmet.  Why does this matter to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...