Sweeslamistan

Do you mean that video about Amerindians that I posted or what?

As for the Islamic culture - it is pretty obvious to me that it is stronger at the moment.

Europe is in the phase of deconstructing its traditional culture and values. Native European culture is decaying.

I am not worried about Muslim immigration because I think their culture is worse but because I think it's stronger and thus a threat to survival of native European cultures. Of course provided that European cultures still exist, because it seems that they are decaying pretty fast even without Muslim help.

I don't know about Europe, but that is not how it is with Muslim immigrants in America at all. Or at least not with my family. Aside from the obvious signs- a fondness for American fast food, speaking English etc. there is this, American, mindset I like to call it in regards to parenting my parents have partially adopted. Back from where my parents come from, the culture's attitude to child rearing is, as long as they are your kids, anything short of killing them is fine. I have often been forced into obligations I don't wish to commit to by my parents, but the frequency and the level of coercion is no where near as bad as how my cousin has it in India. Not that my family is full of bad people, but parents believe they are in the right and they fully believe that even if their kids hate them for it now, later they will thank them. Kids are always on the weaker end of inequal power relationship. But in America, kids and teens more particularly have more safe guards from being forced by parents and there is this notion that kids can make decisions for themselves.

In short I think you are seriously underestimating the softening power of Western liberalism on Muslim immigrants.
 
I just love people like you, who are deliberately misinterpreting the meaning of their opponents' post, just to accuse them of made up things.

I do not believe that black people are inherently intellectually inferior, all I cited in this thread was the FACT that there is an achievement gap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achievement_gap_in_the_United_States

And this achievement gap is not only in the USA, and not only between blacks and whites, also between other ethnic or racial groups.

Nearly all countries which are multi-racial (use a different word if you want) have such achievement gaps and high GINI coefficients:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient



Yes I think they will dominate it. But you know what - maybe it is even better, considering what has become of European cultures.

Okay you believe blacks are intellectually inferior because [reasons] also you believe "multi-racial" countries have achievement gaps because black or brown or [insert group you take issue with] people. Is that better now?
 
Tolni said:
mostly pertaining to the slowdown of economy recently.

And who do you think are causing the slowdown of European economy recently ???

Swedish Prime Minister openly admitted that welfare-collecting immigrants are causing it:


Link to video.

Did you really think that bringing a lot of poor people with little property into your country makes it richer ???

In countries where there is no welfare system, and everyone must work hard for a living - maybe. But not in modern socialist Europe.

Okay you believe blacks are intellectually inferior because [reasons]

I don't know what the reasons are (!) - you can find a lot of debates about this, explanations range from environmental, through cultural to genetic ones, etc. But statistical facts are quite clear that Blacks are scoring on average worse in tests measuring Intelligence Quotient (IQ).

The Bell Curve was published in 1994, and you really still haven't heard about this ??? The debate is ongoing, it did not end nor start in 1994.

also you believe "multi-racial" countries have achievement gaps because

Once again - I have not written even a SINGLE word about the reasons why it is the case. I just wrote that this gap IS the case.

I won't tell you why it is the case, because I don't know - but scholars propose a wide variety of explanations, ranging from cultural to genetic ones.

The debate is ongoing and therefore I am not going to tell you "the reason must be this", or "the reason must be that".

I am open-minded and I will wait for future results of this research, without drawing definite conclusions now.
 
Oh look the bell curve, more racist nonsense.
 
Authors just analyzed results of IQ tests taken over the past century (as long as history of IQ tests goes).

What is racist about examining facts? If anything, IQ tests are "racist", not people who compare their results.

And you know well that the Bell Curve is not an isolated case, but there are plenty of similar publications.
 
I would argue it is more of a legacy of poverty not allowing better school systems. In India the public school systems are so bad that the poor would rather scrounge up the money to go to a cheap private school than go to Public school. Educational reform in India has essentially given up on the public schooling system and are looking for ways to make good private schools more easily available.

I know IQ is supposed to test logic but guess what- logic must be learned like everything else.
 
Today I saw a young Asian woman. She was wearing a tightly-bound niqab, but she was also wearing skinny jeans, Chuck Taylors and messing around with an iPhone.

Your stupid Western civilisation is fine, stop complaining.
 
IQ is not such a big deal, probably most people aren't smart, regardless of race. But problems start when black people want to be governed by people of the same skin color as them, regardless of their competence. This is what happened in Detroit, which for the last 50 years has not seen any whites as mayors and not many whites in the city council. And you probably heard about corruption scandals there, and about inability of local authorities to run the city. In case of Detroit they democratically elected a black former NBA player as mayor not because of his abilities in ruling a city but because of his skin color.

I would argue it is more of a legacy of poverty not allowing better school systems.

Schools in Detroit are getting a lot of money (more than average for the state), but they waste most of it through corruption and misrule.

Another thing is that most of Black children in the USA live in one-parent families, but that's because of out-of-wedlock births in Black culture:

"More than 72 percent of African-American births are out of wedlock":

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...on-lemon-says-more-72-percent-african-americ/
 
Yes, well, in the US you can run for governor because you're a popular 'wrestler'/actor in action movies - and get elected. Are you suggesting that black people are somehow more susceptible to corruption? Or inherently less responsible? Because I'm not sure what you are arguing.

Authors just analyzed results of IQ tests taken over the past century (as long as history of IQ tests goes).

What is racist about examining facts? If anything, IQ tests are "racist", not people who compare their results.

Intelligence Quotient. Sounds pretty scientific. So how come there are so many different IQ tests and there isn't a proper definition of intelligence? And how will you draw a scientifically sound conclusion from comparing IQ tests taken over 100 years, taken according to changing insights into what intelligence is?
 
Remember how the Poles participated in the Holocaust. Just remember that.
 
But Poles have lower IQ than Jews and "disadvantaged" lower IQ groups are "justified" to kill higher IQ groups - this is the case both in South Africa (murders of white farmers), in Palestine (Hamas terrorism), etc. Or maybe not? BTW, here is my thread about the achievement gap in pre-war Poland:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=527206

And also "Where Jews in Interwar Poland More Educated?", written by two Jews - R. Abramitzky and H. Halaburda:

http://web.stanford.edu/~ranabr/Abramitzky-Halaburda.pdf

Ashkenazi Jews have - according to most studies - higher average IQ than Poles. Jews were statistically overrepresented in pre-war Poland among university students (until the introduction of Jewish quotas for the sake of "equality"), as well as among owners of some crucial businesses.

Remember how the Poles participated in the Holocaust. Just remember that.

Jan Tomasz Gross in "Golden Harvest" writes that Polish peasants participated because they wanted to harvest Jewish gold. So motivation was the same as in case of white farm murders in South Africa today - just simple, criminal robbery of wealth owned by high IQ group. Nothing racist about it.

Such things contribute to more equality, after all.
 
Yes, well, in the US you can run for governor because you're a popular 'wrestler'/actor in action movies - and get elected. Are you suggesting that black people are somehow more susceptible to corruption? Or inherently less responsible? Because I'm not sure what you are arguing.

I suggest that most of black people fail to pass "the white test" (which is similar to the Israel test):


Link to video.

By passing the test they can emulate the "white success", learn from it and adopt things. Like Japan or South Korea did.

Rejecting to pass it means adoption of conspiracy theories which say that "whites" are responsible for all of their misfortunes.

Are you suggesting that black people are somehow (...) less responsible?

Some of them are:


Link to video.
 
Israel's development has been an undoubted achievement. (I'm not sure the water resource thing is sustainable, though.)

But I notice he doesn't mention the substantial foreign (looking at you USA, mainly) investment. And the support of international, for want of a better word, Jewry.

Two things that seem to have been notably lacking in Jordan. You wouldn't, naturally, expect the second to be applicable, btw.

Or do I have it wrong?

Also, I should mention the substantial and effective PR effort of Israel. Of which the video clip is both an example and effect.

It would be nice for Jordan to emulate Israel. Resentment comes when Jordanians realize they can't do it, maybe? Or would you, oh eulogizer of Israel, say that there is something unique about the Jordanian human constitution that makes them incapable of it? And more naturally inclined to sit idly back, consumed by envy?

One thing that Israel hasn't done is convince Palestinians that they haven't been treated unjustly. I'm pretty sure they haven't even tried. But even if they have, they surely haven't enjoyed much success. Ah but wait, that would be the envious nature of Palestinians preventing them, wouldn't it?

Isn't that being just a tad simplistic?
 
Remember how the Poles participated in the Holocaust. Just remember that.

Yes, but that was because they are stupid. If I understand Domen correctly. Which I'm not sure anybody does.

I suggest that most of black people fail to pass "the white test" (which is similar to the Israel test):

By passing the test they can emulate the "white success", learn from it and adopt things. Like Japan or South Korea did.

Rejecting to pass it means adoption of conspiracy theories which say that "whites" are responsible for all of their misfortunes.

Do you think the Nazi and apartheid regimes were "white successes"? Do you think Capitalism is "white"?

Some of them are:

Some of all people are irresponsible. I don't think you need an IQ test for that.
 
Yes, but that was because they are stupid. If I understand Domen correctly.

No you misunderstood me, unfortunately. Read again what I wrote.

In debates such as this one below, Jan Tomasz Gross agreed that anti-Jewish violence had similar nature to anti-szlachta mob violence:


Link to video.

Example of anti-szlachta (anti-nobility) mob violence in Galicia - peasants were even more hostile towards nobility than towards Jews:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galician_slaughter

Do you think the Nazi and apartheid regimes were "white successes"?

Rhodesia was ruled by Brits, but Cecil Rhodes was not like Adolf Hitler, or like Roderick Spode:


Link to video.

Do you think Capitalism is "white"?

Yes, capitalism was invented in Europe. Later it was successfully adopted by countries such as Japan or South Korea.
 
Oh look the bell curve, more racist nonsense.

Do you have any strange unconscious fixation on the word "racist"? You seem to be using it in every other post. Something troubling happened in the past?
 
Such things contribute to more equality, after all.

As much as criminality creates more equality (i.e. not really).
 
As someone who has been a critical observer of Islam and its spread to Europe, I suppose I'll bring in my contribution to this thread.

First of all, let's get our definitions straight. When we talk about Islam, we are not talking about a race or an ethnic group. Perhaps less obvious, we are also not talking about the people who adhere to the religion of Islam. We are talking about the religion itself and its core dogmas. This is an important distinction. When criticizing the dogmas spelt out in the islamic holy texts, the Koran and the Hadith, we are not engaging in criticism of all Muslims. Instead, we are criticizing an ideology; an ideology, which at its core contains a plethora of beliefs about the world which are incompatible with Western values.

The main message of the Koran and the Hadith, as witnessed by literally hundreds of verses, is to kill, convert, or enslave the infidel. Martyrdom is viewed as an honorific deed. Antisemitism is openly promoted. Women are treated as second class citizens (at best), and are denied many basic rights. Homosexuality is condemned, as are blasphemy and apostacy. The punishment for such "crimes" is death, usually by means of stoning. Further, the Koran contains many scientific falsehoods, like mankind not being a product of evolution. It should be quite clear that such an ideology, whether religious or not, should not be taken seriously in the 21st century, and its promotion in our society should be repudiated.

An objection may be (and has been in this thread) that the core dogmas of the Christian and Jewish faith are no less obscene by the standards of our modern society. And that is evidently true. Criticizing Islam does not mean that other religions get a free pass, and where the bible stands in contrast to science and modern-day ethics it should be criticized just as much. However, there is a crucial difference. Christianity has undergone a much longer process of colliding repeatedly with modernity. Most notably, the enlightenment has tamed much of the dangerous nonsense we find in the bible. Its hideous moral teachings, such as killing people for imaginary crimes (like witchcraft or working on the sabath), the degrading of women, or the concept of hell, have had to give way to secular moral progress and a better understanding of the world around us. There are still plenty of inauspicious Christian views virulent in Europe, but in its whole Christianity has been mastered by secularism and a modern understanding of ethics. Islam, on the other hand, has not undergone such a process to this extent. Hence its teachings are much more pure and unscathed by modernity.

Of course not all Muslims take the Koran literally. If they did, we'd be facing problems of scope and scale a thousandfold bigger than the ones at present. But it cannot be ignored that many Muslims do take their scripture, or at least large parts of it, seriously. We are not talking about 10,000s of extremist terrorists - hundreds of millions Muslims over the globe have convictions we find at least problematic. It is no coincedence that in many European countries we are facing problems caused by the religious beliefs of Muslims. When British Muslims were asked whether the Danish cartoonist who caricatured the prophet Muhammad should be thrown in prison, 78% said he should have been. That's a huge problem.

If we are to defend our Western values, which were so hard fought for over the last centuries, such as tolerance, equality of the sexes, or freedom of speech, we must relentlessly oppose such dogmas which threaten to undermine these values. It is the great irony of our time that this necessary fight for such values is often displayed as being an act of intolerance, especially in the liberal press. Usually, those who rigorously criticize Islam in public are currently either our own crack-pot religious extremists or adherents to their own diversive and often nationalistic dogmas, who, for obvious reasons, do not make good allies. We must overcome this detrimental form of political correctness if we want to prevail in our struggle for ongoing human progress.
 
First of all, let's get our definitions straight. When we talk about Islam, we are not talking about a race or an ethnic group. Perhaps less obvious, we are also not talking about the people who adhere to the religion of Islam. We are talking about the religion itself and its core dogmas. This is an important distinction. When criticizing the dogmas spelt out in the islamic holy texts, the Koran and the Hadith, we are not engaging in criticism of all Muslims. Instead, we are criticizing an ideology; an ideology, which at its core contains a plethora of beliefs about the world which are incompatible with Western values.

Islam isn't an ideology. It can be ideological, but there are many Islamic ideologies, not one. You might be surprised (actually, a keen observer or student wouldn't be) to find that some of these are compatible with 'Western values'.

Funky said:
If we are to defend our Western values, which were so hard fought for over the last centuries, such as tolerance, equality of the sexes, or freedom of speech, we must relentlessly oppose such dogmas which threaten to undermine these values. It is the great irony of our time that this necessary fight for such values is often displayed as being an act of intolerance, especially in the liberal press. Usually, those who rigorously criticize Islam in public are currently either our own crack-pot religious extremists or adherents to their own diversive and often nationalistic dogmas, who, for obvious reasons, do not make good allies. We must overcome this detrimental form of political correctness if we want to prevail in our struggle for ongoing human progress.

Whatever Western values might be, the practice of the West has been to export intolerance to other places. How many extremist groups has Western governments supported over the past century, or repressive intolerant regimes? It's incredible that there can be such arrogance and pontificating coming from people whose hands are just as dirty.
 
As someone who has been a critical observer of Islam and its spread to Europe, I suppose I'll bring in my contribution to this thread.

First of all, let's get our definitions straight. When we talk about Islam, we are not talking about a race or an ethnic group. Perhaps less obvious, we are also not talking about the people who adhere to the religion of Islam. We are talking about the religion itself and its core dogmas. This is an important distinction. When criticizing the dogmas spelt out in the islamic holy texts, the Koran and the Hadith, we are not engaging in criticism of all Muslims. Instead, we are criticizing an ideology; an ideology, which at its core contains a plethora of beliefs about the world which are incompatible with Western values.

The main message of the Koran and the Hadith, as witnessed by literally hundreds of verses, is to kill, convert, or enslave the infidel. Martyrdom is viewed as an honorific deed. Antisemitism is openly promoted. Women are treated as second class citizens (at best), and are denied many basic rights. Homosexuality is condemned, as are blasphemy and apostacy. The punishment for such "crimes" is death, usually by means of stoning. Further, the Koran contains many scientific falsehoods, like mankind not being a product of evolution. It should be quite clear that such an ideology, whether religious or not, should not be taken seriously in the 21st century, and its promotion in our society should be repudiated.

An objection may be (and has been in this thread) that the core dogmas of the Christian and Jewish faith are no less obscene by the standards of our modern society. And that is evidently true. Criticizing Islam does not mean that other religions get a free pass, and where the bible stands in contrast to science and modern-day ethics it should be criticized just as much. However, there is a crucial difference. Christianity has undergone a much longer process of colliding repeatedly with modernity. Most notably, the enlightenment has tamed much of the dangerous nonsense we find in the bible. Its hideous moral teachings, such as killing people for imaginary crimes (like witchcraft or working on the sabath), the degrading of women, or the concept of hell, have had to give way to secular moral progress and a better understanding of the world around us. There are still plenty of inauspicious Christian views virulent in Europe, but in its whole Christianity has been mastered by secularism and a modern understanding of ethics. Islam, on the other hand, has not undergone such a process to this extent. Hence its teachings are much more pure and unscathed by modernity.

Of course not all Muslims take the Koran literally. If they did, we'd be facing problems of scope and scale a thousandfold bigger than the ones at present. But it cannot be ignored that many Muslims do take their scripture, or at least large parts of it, seriously. We are not talking about 10,000s of extremist terrorists - hundreds of millions Muslims over the globe have convictions we find at least problematic. It is no coincedence that in many European countries we are facing problems caused by the religious beliefs of Muslims. When British Muslims were asked whether the Danish cartoonist who caricatured the prophet Muhammad should be thrown in prison, 78% said he should have been. That's a huge problem.

If we are to defend our Western values, which were so hard fought for over the last centuries, such as tolerance, equality of the sexes, or freedom of speech, we must relentlessly oppose such dogmas which threaten to undermine these values. It is the great irony of our time that this necessary fight for such values is often displayed as being an act of intolerance, especially in the liberal press. Usually, those who rigorously criticize Islam in public are currently either our own crack-pot religious extremists or adherents to their own diversive and often nationalistic dogmas, who, for obvious reasons, do not make good allies. We must overcome this detrimental form of political correctness if we want to prevail in our struggle for ongoing human progress.

I get what you are saying, but I don't interpret the Quran based on the words alone- that would be stupid. All religious texts must be taken in context for their times. The Quran was progressive for its time- it demanded that men give women more rights that they had before. Now it is not so progressive, but people should not forget it was trying to improve the social condition of the woman and orphan at a time when they had no rights and that this idea of greater social justice and legal rights for women must be followed, not the literal words on the paper.
 
Back
Top Bottom