Ethnic diversity harms a country's social cohesion

[Guest]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Understanding why someone (or a group or a country) does something doesn't mean you agree with it or think it's right.  

 

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It clearly does mean that to these bozos.

 

Okay, so we're all agreed that killing innocent people in response to the killing of innocent people is wrong. 

We disagree on the understanding of it.  And some of us understand it when it goes one way, but we don't understand it when it goes the other way, even when it's not killing innocent people in response to the killing of innocent people at all, but maybe just yelling abuse at innocent people in response to the killing of innocent people.  That latter is beyond the pale for some.

And you talk about bozos?

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

You're free to support Islam and wish its critics dead...that is VERY Islamic.

Thanks. Good to know.

[eyeball]

On 9/16/2019 at 8:17 AM, bcsapper said:

Okay, so we're all agreed that killing innocent people in response to the killing of innocent people is wrong. 

 

Where we really disagree is that backing dictators is acceptable. AFAIC the effects of doing so, especially on our society's morals. Is far far worse than anything terrorism has done to us. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by eyeball

[Dougie93]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Where we really disagree is that backing dictators is acceptable.

Those dictators being the one's who maintain and uphold by force the rule of the Wahhab.

The Wahhabist movement is not something from the distant past, the House of Saud only began to propagate it in the 1970's.

Bear in mind that this is what Kabul Afghanistan looked like, in the 1960s;

Edited September 16, 2019 by Dougie93

[taxme]

On 9/9/2019 at 1:32 PM, Scott Mayers said:

I'm tired of the group-favoritism that derives most strongly from and by those who believe in (a) a presumed 'cultural identity' of an inherent genetic association, and (b) that these groups are the only minority that counts (versus the individual).

Because those belonging to a select group always supersede the individual, only those among groups (in general) get represented when it comes to politics with the greatest priority. While logical, the problem isn't about the class identity of people so much as to the KINDS of beliefs about those associating to groups based upon STRONGER or extreme beliefs most specificaly about inheritance. That is, the extreme believers IN segregated structures that are more religiously defined take precedence to media and poltics who define their ingroups as genetically related and with the presumption of some uniformity among the classes they define as members....even if all 'members' defined by them do not agree nor associate with the particular believers.

Example, the belief that one who is "First Nations" is anyone who has a genetic ancestry to some North American tribe prior to modern civilization from European peoples. How does one's genetic link to some ancestor relate to one's NATURE? I mean, it is understandable that if you have squirel DNA, that your tendency to collect nuts and bury them might be rationalized upon learning that you HAVE squirel DNA. But within a species, how does one having a genetic ancestor to say, a Cree Nation, mean that whatever WAS 'Cree' 500 years ago relate to who you are as a human being today, outside of others' imposed associations upon you? 

It reminds me of a commercial for those sites that link you to your genetic ancestors where one guy says that he had to trade in his Scottish skirt for  German lederhosen when he discovered that he was German and NOT Scottish. Why does it matter?  AND, considered some of us are adopted, what does that imply about us if our adopting parents have no genetic relation to us? Are we supposed to be treated as distinct outsiders for not having this association? Do you owe homage to the family who raised you OR to the family who abandoned you? This kind of question doesn't get raised because most people AREN'T adopted normally. But this should give you some idea of the absurdity of this 'normal' thinking by most, ...even if they may not presume they themselves are against differences of people.

What about mixed genetic associations? If you have a mixed genetic makeup, which one do you owe homage to IF you are expected to pick one? Note that the presumption of ANY cultural identity based upon genetics is biased against anyone who does have this split regardless of their potential denial because they still presume there is some logical relevance outside of some mere historical fact. We ARE all related to some degree. So why would, say, being Mexican, matter, when upon seeking to earlier roots you may discover that you are Spanish,.... and before that, French or Arabic, or ...? 

So, I am tired of all of you who think that being X of some 'heritage' matters at all. Yet, most of you take this arrogant stance and have the POWER for simply having this type of strong belief in 'culture'. AND, this is prevalent in ALL parties today. All go against the individual that has no binding association to 'culture' nor 'race' nor 'sex', etc. 

"Diversity" by its word means variable. But it doesn't self-define those supporting it as supporting different INDIVIDUALS but rather different GROUPS. And, like I already mentioned, they are based upon a 'religious' kind of belief that one's genetic roots MATTER! The differenct is the right to left parties today are about those different groups only. The 'right' wing believes in the group or groups that are presently empowered and who most strongly associate to IDENTITY but fear competition. They presume some 'we' they assign to all those that look like them on the outside. For instance, those of you who assume that 'we' are a 'Christian' and 'white' nation are believers in some superiority of some 'us' that you drag all those who are generally similar to the racial groups you also share, even if the potential majority of them are NOT associated to you. On the left, you have just all those groups with anti-association to the particular favored group BUT still think the same way. You just know that the means to empower your own arrogant and racist viewpoint is to side with the other groups of similar disempowerment UNTIL you at some point in the future COULD get the sole power. 

"Diversity" by our government is only officially meaning that you are either Catholic French or Anglican or, to prevent notice of present bias, the collective 'First Nations'. Other groups based upon religious-genetic associations (hideously titled as 'cultures') are accepted for embracing similar kinds of 'nationalism' (meaning here, the belief in one's genetic with cultural association regardless of where you actually live on Earth). 

While I believe that I represent the majority, such a majority are spoken for THROUGH the guise of those 'nationalistic' thinkers. As such, the power never belongs to individual 'diversity' but to cults. I notice that even on this site, people mostly belong to some such cult. When I think that one may be arguing for something relatively 'fair', for instance, I often discover that they still hold some bias to some cult in which they are not interested in the logic of the arguments universally but to whatever merely makes their opponent alone seem hypocritical. It makes it hard to nod to some argument you agree to in some part when they too would place you in some outsider's box should they be more empowered. 

As to the topic of something like immigration, where I notice many think it 'inappropriate' to resist them, I agree where it relates to the logical problem associated to it: When you take on your abusive neighbor's kids, often by taking them in without concern to their parents, you only relieve the abuser's economic problem momentarily to allow these 'parents' to have a free night to themselves ...long enough for them to proceate and have a new generation of kids to abuse further. Also, when you already 'favor' some of your own kids over others, when you bring in new ones from outside, it represents you having even more favoritism that competes against those kids who are already presently ignored. So it is no wonder why those hated kids of your own will more likely be the ones to complain about newcomers being welcomed compassionately without restrictions. 

By the way, I happen to get along better to most immigrants over those here already because I know the actual struggles involved. The apparent compassion for the 'children' are as irresponsible to me as those who ONLY adopt puppies or kittens but don't think twice about dropping the unwanted full grown dogs or cats in some neighborhood they think will embrace them. Isn't this the same logic of those abusive governments that enable their own to go else where? 

Multiculturalism/diversity and tiny ethnic minorities is what is starting to destroy this once great nation. Nations were created by an ethnic group to live in and to be able to carry on with their own culture and ways of doing things that are different to other ethnic people. But here in Canada, that has changed big time. Canada now brings in too many cultures, languages and religions that it will be able to control in time and which will eventually all will collide against one another and will sow even more animosity than what we are seeing today. Our stupid politicians are forcing too many ethnic people together that hate other ethnic people. A recipe for tribal warfare in Canada one day.

But who cares, eh? This is Canada, don't you know. Canada will never turn out like that, eh. Ya sure. Tell someone who will believe that chit because I do not. I only see chaos and mayhem ahead for Canada. My opinion. Works for me. 

[jacee]

On 9/15/2019 at 4:39 PM, bcsapper said:

Of course you do.  It's easier than having to justify the nastiness that takes place in the  name of Allah.  You're certainly not alone.

Evil is done in the name of "God" in many languages, but mostly in English.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, jacee said:

Evil is done in the name of "God" in many languages, but mostly in English.

 

It's not our fault if the rest of the world speaks our language.  Of course, they might be using their own language first, as evil can be pretty specific sometimes.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Where we really disagree is that backing dictators is acceptable. AFAIC the effects of doing so, especially the effect doing do has had on our society's morals? Is far far worse than anything terrorism has done to us. 

I don't think so.  I'd happily send assassins to get rid of them all.  MBS, Assad, Maduro, you name them, I'd probably be okay with killing them. 

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

Evil is done in the name of "God" in many languages, but mostly in English.

You meant to say mainly in Arabic, did you not? They're the people doing evil in the name of God these days.

[Rue]

On ‎9‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 12:13 PM, Dougie93 said:

By the spirit and letter of the law, Hezbollah are terrorists, yet  they have a strict chain of command and they wear uniforms.

By the same law, the Pershmerga are terrorists, they have a strict chain of command and they wear uniforms.

Hezbollah are Anti-Western terrorists.

The Pershmerga are Pro-Western terrorists.

The Iranian Quds Force is SF supporting Ant-Western terrorists.

CANSOFCOM is SF supporting Pro-Western terrorists.

They're all unlawful combatants, "Partisan" is just an euphemism for Friendly Terrorist.

Employing Partisans in another sovereigns territory is prohibited,  all the way back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648

SF is not protected by the Hague Conventions while conducting Foreign Internal Defense.

Hence why the emphasis on SERE.   If a GB gets caught, he has no protections as Privileged Combatant, he is and will be treated as a Terrorist.

America was born of treason and terrorism and foreign interference by the French.

Hence why America takes the view that there are Our Terrorists and Their Terrorists.

Our Terrorists we call;  Special Force & Partisans.

Their Terrorists we call; Unlawful Combatants & Fanatics.

John Brown was a terrorist.   Bleeding Kansas.   Harper's Ferry.  Hung for treason.

Glorious Union.  Free the slaves.  By any means necessary.  God our vindicator.

 

Actually Hezbollah does not have a uniform when it engages in terrorist actions and its been known to have worn IDF uniforms:

https://www.nysun.com/foreign/enemy-donned-idf-uniforms-in-lebanon/38156/

As a general rule  it does not wear uniforms unless its for parades and to show off to the media, i.e., 

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2014/11/07/New-ninja-uniforms-of-Hezbollah-s-elite-forces-unveiled-.html

It is true in Syria  because they have engaged in both asymmetric warfare and guerrilla tactics some of their units may have had khaki  uniforms but they are not uniform.

No they are not structured like a traditional army with officers and ranks:

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/exclusive-the-hezbollah-military-command-structure/

No Hezbollah is not an army or even a militia. It is groups or cells of about 12 each with a leader but that leader can be quickly changed if killed. If anything all members of the cell are interchangeable if one dies. Anyone can lead.

They are the most educated and disciplined of terror groups right now in Syria and they have recruited into their ranks Sunnis, Druze and Christians although obviously the vast majority are Shiite.

This thread was about ethnic diversity not Hezbollah. Hezbollah ironically is against ethnic diversity. It wants a one world Shiite Muslim council to rule the world and considers anyone who does not follow its version of Islam to be the enemy.

Ethnic diversity is the anti-thesis of the Islamic Dhimmitude Hezbollah subscribes to which makes it hate any Muslims as much as it does we Jews or anyone else if they think we do not agree with them.

They are cowards. They believe in killing and torturing civilians to spread fear.

They are a classic example of what happens when someone becomes extreme about hating ethnic diversity.

That is their only relevance to this thread. 

As for anyone who tries to argue terrorists are the result of being treated unfairly I say bullshit. Far more non terrorists come out of unfair environments than terrorists and rather than use violence and indiscriminate, gratuitous violence as their method of expression justifying it by claiming they were treated unfairly, the vast majority of humans do not become terrorists when they are treated unfairly. To justify terrorism by making terrorisms victims of unfairness rationalizes their behavior, justifies it as understandable cause and effect and it insults the majority of humans who do NOT choose terrorism when faced with injustice but choose instead peace, rational discourse and to control their primal negative emotions in favour of logic and compassion.

Anyone who wants to excuse terrorism as a result of a victim acting out I say this-you need to visit and see who terrorists are and who they kill. They kill first and foremost the very people they claim to defend-they are their ultimate and first and primary enemy precisely because the majority of the people they claim to lead won't turn into the savages they have. I have been there. I have seen the mothers refuse to let their children be taken in the night. I have seen men lit on fire with rubber necklaces for being accused of not supporting Hamas. Hezbollah doesn't go door to door with pamphlets recruiting. It goes into neighbourhoods and kills rampantly innocent civilians and for such good Muslims as they claim to be they are not adverse to raping and mutilating the bodies of women, children and men.

This country has choices. We chose to welcome people who were different, not kill them. We chose to welcome difference to avoid becoming stagnant.

 

 

 

 

[cougar]

10 hours ago, taxme said:

Multiculturalism/diversity and tiny ethnic minorities is what is starting to destroy this once great nation. Nations were created by an ethnic group to live in and to be able to carry on with their own culture and ways of doing things that are different to other ethnic people. But here in Canada, that has changed big time. Canada now brings in too many cultures, languages and religions that it will be able to control in time and which will eventually all will collide against one another and will sow even more animosity than what we are seeing today. Our stupid politicians are forcing too many ethnic people together that hate other ethnic people. A recipe for tribal warfare in Canada one day.

But who cares, eh? This is Canada, don't you know. Canada will never turn out like that, eh. Ya sure. Tell someone who will believe that chit because I do not. I only see chaos and mayhem ahead for Canada. My opinion. Works for me. 

This is my opinion as well. 

In the past one needed to be really skillful to be a spy;  look like a resident of the nation they are infiltrating, speak the language with no accent, etc , etc.

In our situation, one only needs to wear a uniform of the Canadian forces and we should all believe the person is a true Canadian.  If we do not, we will be blamed for stereotyping him, racially discriminating against him and the RCMP will be all over us.  Now what happens in a civil war situation where the RCMP is no longer in control?  How do you tell who is who and especially what side is one on?

If India waged war on Canada tomorrow, for the death of me, I will have no clue if those guys at Subway and Tim Hortons are newly landed Indian troops camouflaged in their native civilian attire or if they are recent refugee claimants, temporary workers or simply Canadian residents and citizens.  They all seem to dress the same way as in their own country and speak their native Punjabi.    Same with any other culture in Canada.

I've said it before and I will say it again.  I am not happy at this situation.  I do not aspire to be a Canadian as by definition it amounts to nothing - being a person who came to do business in Canada.

[cougar]

12 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Those dictators being the one's who maintain and uphold by force the rule of the Wahhab.

The Wahhabist movement is not something from the distant past, the House of Saud only began to propagate it in the 1970's.

Bear in mind that this is what Kabul Afghanistan looked like, in the 1960s;

Definitely more attractive women in Kabul in the 60's than I see around in my neck of Canada in the 2020's.

[jacee]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

You meant to say mainly in Arabic, did you not? They're the people doing evil in the name of God these days.

Where in Canada is that? 

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by jacee

[Dougie93]

37 minutes ago, cougar said:

Definitely more attractive women in Kabul in the 60's than I see around in my neck of Canada in the 2020's.

I'm older now, so I like em' older but bolder, most Millennials seem asexual to me, they're like puritans, it's the science fiction future where people are not sexy.

[jacee]

45 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I'm older now, so I like em' older but bolder, most Millennials seem asexual to me, they're like puritans, it's the science fiction future where people are not sexy.

I can guarantee they're not trying to look sexy for old guys.  Lol 

[jacee]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

Definitely more attractive women in Kabul in the 60's than I see around in my neck of Canada in the 2020's.

Incels are pathetic.

Don't be like incels. 

[jacee]

13 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Those dictators being the one's who maintain and uphold by force the rule of the Wahhab.

The Wahhabist movement is not something from the distant past, the House of Saud only began to propagate it in the 1970's.

Bear in mind that this is what Kabul Afghanistan looked like, in the 1960s;

Tourists? 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, jacee said:

Tourists? 

Afghan women were fully westernized at the time too.

 

[Dougie93]

6 hours ago, Rue said:

As for anyone who tries to argue terrorists are the result of being treated unfairly I say bullshit.

Whoop dee doo.  You're welcome to your opinions but not your own logic. /shrugs

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, jacee said:

I can guarantee they're not trying to look sexy for old guys.  Lol 

How would you know?  Have you even had sex?  You seem asexual too.

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

How would you know?  Have you even had sex?  You seem asexual too.

Lighten up, cranky old fart. 

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Avoid trolling. 

[Dougie93]

7 hours ago, jacee said:

Lighten up, cranky old fart. 

Oh I'm not cranky, older as I may be, all those years in the army kept me in good shape, I'm still hot, and I have money;  chicks dig it.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, jacee said:

Where in Canada is that?

Moving the goal posts rather suddenly,  aren't you?

Okay. Where in Canada is evil done in the name of God?

[Goddess]

49 minutes ago, Argus said:

Where in Canada is evil done in the name of God?

They're not killing innocent people in every country of the world in random terror acts, but Bountiful BC is one.

They are however, a group that enjoys no applause from the larger community for doing what they're doing, have been the subject of police and legal actions and have no political influence whatsoever, so that would be a disingenuous comparison.