Why Islam is a problem for the integration of immigrants

[Timsup2nothin]

You just admitted to disregarding any information that you don't already agree with, then you have the arrogance and condescension to accuse others of being in an echo-chamber, or to be ill-informed. It's really an extraordinary feat of mental gymnastics that one must stand in awe of.

Actually he acknowledged that he is already familiar with most of the fake news, alt-right echo chambers, and dingbat bloggers on the big list o' links that you copy pasted and claimed as "research." Your redefinition of "doing research" has not been accepted by people with even passing acquaintance with what research actually is. That is not a failure on their part.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect

You are being charitable. My experience with KmDubya suggests that it is more likely that he is outright lying than that he is merely incorrect.

 

[Lexicus]

Moderates be like:

See, I was trying to find that cartoon to post it but failed. My improvisation wasn't as good

 

[aelf]

I remembered who posted it and did a search

It's a pretty awesome depiction of what goes on a lot around here.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It will be if you intend to maintain the current culture in the region.

Or do you think that the immigrants who are racially, culturally and religiously different will some how morph into peaceful, tolerant, liberal Nordics?

It's not a problem if you want your children to grow up in a society like Pakistan.

Here's the bit I don't get about the anti-immigration perspective. Although it is constantly asserting that West-is-best, it actually seems to betray an anxiety that the West isn't in fact the superior world culture. Because if the West indisputably were so, why wouldn't newcomers adopt its clearly superior ways?

These self-styled pro-Westers seem to me to lack conviction about the actual superiority of the culture whose supposed superiority they trumpet so loudly.

 

[RomanKing]

Actually he acknowledged that he is already familiar with most of the fake news, alt-right echo chambers, and dingbat bloggers on the big list o' links that you copy pasted and claimed as "research.".

You mean fake news like Hillary has a 99% chance to win the election? Trump has no chance of winning? That kind of fake news?

You are being charitable. My experience with KmDubya suggests that it is more likely that he is outright lying than that he is merely incorrect.

Of course. Liberals don't need to provide any evidence because all information that doesn't support their opinion is "fake news" or "a lie."

What an utter embarrassment.

 

[Agent327]

Sure. A person will flit between whether a specific change is good for them or in general when trying to make a decision. I can also play a meta-game, and acknowledge that other people are doing the same.

It's not me who is playing a game. But interesting diversion from the point.

Wouldn't you expect a muslim to be more horrified at the idea of a suicide bomber targeting civilians?

What is the special quality in Muslims that would make them more horrified than other people?

I'm not saying we don't want muslims. Never was. I am saying that a high tolerance for suicide bombings is a significant impediment to integration. It's merely an acknowledgement of an impediment. It says nothing of its cause. It gives nothing about a solution. Though I do not accept the idea that it's an acceptance that should just be tolerated. It's an unacceptable acceptance. But, again, I am not giving any type of prescription.

You're continuing to focus on the statistical threat, in order to poo poo the concern. That would be fine, if the concern was based on violence. I've repeatedly said that it's not. So, either you're stuck on a bone, or you don't believe me.

I doubt anybody has a high tolerance for suicide bombings. People are quite fragile.

I use 0.01% and 2% as thresholds for violence and for sociopathic ideology for a reason. Sociopathic schizophrenics run at about 0.01% of any population. So, even if there are murders performed in the name of an ideology, it doesn't mean much, there will always be a low-boil of such things.

2% is the rough level of anti-social behaviour. This means that roughly 2% of people are quite willing to hurt others to get their way, and they're not concerned about long-term consequences. When a sociopathic meme has a greater penetrance than this, then it's a concern about the actual memespace and not merely something we'd expect.

This is why I had my original question, and it was an honest one.
What level of tolerance for suicide bombing of civilians would concern you? Not for fear for yourself or for other. I am not asking whether you're scared.

I'm sensing you missed my point, because I answered, seemingly, on a different topic. But then, your question was answered, on topic. I'll go back to the analogy. If 40 % of people display stupid behaviour, is this reason for concern? And then, if 2 % of people display stupid behaviour? But you are concerned about thoughts. Thoughts are free, and it doesn't concern me if X number of people firmly believe people will go to Hell (or Heaven). As long as such beliefs are private, the people who hold those beliefs can perfectly well, in their daily lives, be well-integrated citizens. Now, if it doesn't concern me, should it concern authorities? That's the real issue, I feel.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You mean fake news like Hillary has a 99% chance to win the election? That kind of fake news?

LOL...okay, so now that you've demonstrated that in addition to not knowing what "research" is you also don't know what constitutes "fake news" can you provide us with anything that you do know something about?

 

[RomanKing]

LOL...okay, so now that you've demonstrated that in addition to not knowing what "research" is you also don't know what constitutes "fake news" can you provide us with anything that you do know something about?

Last I check Hillary and her sycophants got stomped and Trump has a majority in both House and Senate.

The liberal fake news couldn't of been more erroneous.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Last I check Hillary and her sycophants got stomped and Trump has a majority in both House and Senate.

Ah...so even though you are clueless regarding research and what constitutes fake news you do occasionally stumble over a fact. That's good to know, but is that one unique?

 

[RomanKing]

Narrow-minded zealotry isn't going to turn back the tide. You're preaching to a choir that is shrinking everyday.

It feels good.

 

[Broken_Erika]

That's a good label for the 2016 election:Sycophants vs. Psychopaths 2016.

 

[El_Machinae]

[QUOTE="Agent327, post: 14712078, member: 262390]What is the special quality in Muslims that would make them more horrified than other people?
[/QUOTE]
Muslims are the majority of the victims of suicide bombings. I would normally predict that this would make them more empathic towards the horror of them

I doubt anybody has a high tolerance for suicide bombings. People are quite fragile.

True. It's merely an expressed high tolerance when they say "they're often justified".

I'm sensing you missed my point, because I answered, seemingly, on a different topic. But then, your question was answered, on topic. I'll go back to the analogy. If 40 % of people display stupid behaviour, is this reason for concern? And then, if 2 % of people display stupid behaviour? But you are concerned about thoughts. Thoughts are free, and it doesn't concern me if X number of people firmly believe people will go to Hell (or Heaven). As long as such beliefs are private, the people who hold those beliefs can perfectly well, in their daily lives, be well-integrated citizens. Now, if it doesn't concern me, should it concern authorities? That's the real issue, I feel.

So, 'no?'
We're different people. I'll view baselines and trendlines regarding odious morals with interest. The expansion of that belief will concern me. The shrinking of that belief will relieve me.

I don't assume that atrocities scale linearly with acceptance of those atrocities. I'd be honestly surprised if they did.

There's an underlying 'real issue' absolutely. But you and I barely disagree on that front

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Narrow-minded zealotry isn't going to turn back the tide.

LOL...your narrow minded zealotry IS the tide...but despite recent narrow victories that tide will peak and fall back because narrow minded zealots just aren't a majority, no matter how much you want to believe that you are. Ugliness and genocides are too unattractive to normal people for your movement to be sustainable.

 

[RomanKing]

You've already lost your Stalingrad.

 

[KmDubya]

I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect - no matter what former VP Biden ' admitted'. Iraq has been plagued by sectarist violence since Saddam Hussein's fall. The decision to simply dismiss the then military while letting them keep their arms didn't exactly help either. Secondly, the decision to pull troops back was already taken under the Bush Jr administration.



Utter nonsense. Firstly, South Vietnam was never 'viable'; the moment US troops departed, it collapsed. After the war had been secretly expanded to Laos and Cambodia under Nixon. You know, the man who promised 'peace with honor'. I'm fairly certain Nixon wasn't a Democrat.



Farming in the desert is a Civ fiction. Turkish immigration into Germany was a result of the Wirtschaftswunder, not a cause. Birth rates among immigrants drop substantially, statistics show. (In fact, they are dropping all across North Africa.)



The problem in Afghanistan wasn't 'lack of force', but complete ignorance of local conditions and lack of political will to do anything about it. That hasn't changed. Any counterinsurgency specialist can inform you that no matter how many people you kill, if you can't win the hearts and minds of people, your efforts will eventually be fruitless. But sure, you'll foster enough hate for extremists to feed off. In other words, you can kill all the Bin Ladens you want, that will not end terrorism.

Here's Biden in an interview with Larry King http://www.weeklystandard.com/biden-once-called-iraq-one-of-obamas-great-achievements/article/794909
The situation on the ground was stabilizing before Obama pulled out everybody without concern for what would happen. This is fact.

Here's what happened when the democratic controlled Congress cut funding to South Vietnam http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/31400
With sufficient funding the South could have held off the North but instead they fell due to inadequate funding. This is fact.

An insurgency falls apart when the remaining living care more about living than getting revenge. The problem is that effectively committing genocide is frowned upon if the facts get out. How did Russia sort out Chechnya? They did by basically killing most every male that they could catch and keeping the media away from what they did. Stopping terrorism and stopping an insurgency are two different things. Insurgencies requires support of the people and if you kill enough of the people the rest just want to live. Terrorism is a belief and you can't kill a belief with bullets, you need a better belief. Afghanistan has an insurgency problem and a tribalism problem, not a terrorism problem.

 

[KmDubya]

Here's the bit I don't get about the anti-immigration perspective. Although it is constantly asserting that West-is-best, it actually seems to betray an anxiety that the West isn't in fact the superior world culture. Because if the West indisputably were so, why wouldn't newcomers adopt its clearly superior ways?

These self-styled pro-Westers seem to me to lack conviction about the actual superiority of the culture whose supposed superiority they trumpet so loudly.

The natural state of things is barbarism. Undefended Western Civilization, the light in the darkness, will be extinguished. Superiority has nothing to do with it, its just that its easier to destroy than to build. Back in the day the British Empire would burn a town to the ground if they were slavers, now people accept barbaric practices due to multi-culturalism and not wanting to judge anyone.

 

[KmDubya]

You are being charitable. My experience with KmDubya suggests that it is more likely that he is outright lying than that he is merely incorrect.

Please show where I've ever outright lied.

Its easy to talk **** on the internet, in real life you'd be a lot more careful in calling someone a liar.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The natural state of things is barbarism.

This is mostly accurate.

Undefended Western Civilization, the light in the darkness, will be extinguished.

This is just arrogance.

Superiority has nothing to do with it,

And this is just flat out denial about the obvious underpinnings of the previously displayed arrogance.

Western civilization is no more a "light in the darkness" than any other civilization...ALL civilization is a resistance to that normal state of barbarism that you mentioned. Unfortunately, arrogance about the superiority of one's OWN civilization opens the door for the barbarism of destroying "rival" lights in the darkness, which merely expands the reach of that natural state of barbarism.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Please show where I've ever outright lied.

Its easy to talk **** on the internet, in real life you'd be a lot more careful in calling someone a liar.

Not if they were an obvious liar. I'm pretty much bluntly honest everywhere I speak.

You on the other hand show your truth right here in how you defend yourself. "Show where I have "outright" lied..." You yourself are undoubtedly aware that you've "skirted the truth" to support your point, or "misrepresented" or "stated a fact that while it didn't really support the claim was indisputable and created false credibility." That kind of thing actually works much better in real life because there is no reviewable record and people tend to give "benefit of the doubt" when only their memory serves them information.

On the internet whatever you say stays. So when you twist back and forth playing all sides it becomes obvious after a while. When something irrelevant sounds good at first blush but the stench of intentional misleading starts to pour off of it you lose more than you gained.