Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DWC]

Are European countries actually "importing people"? I would imagine people trying to get OUT of those countries and into a Western one would be... well... exactly the sort of people we'd want to allow in, in general?

Yeah 'importing' is probably a loaded term, a lot of these immigrants are nominally refugees, although it's this mechanism is how these immigrants circumvent the otherwise high bars countries set for immigration or residency eligibility. These goverments seem to like accepting anybody with a political asylum claim or anybody claiming to be a refugee in the name of diversity, it makes sense of a case-by-case basis, but not at the scale these governments are bring them in in the last few years. Plenty of people don't like the country they live in, after all, they'd otherwise be a bit more selective on who they grant asylum to.

[shadenight123]

Magdi Allam VS Adel Smith.

Naturalized Italian Vs Refusal to Accept the Culture.

Quoting two Italian Writers who spoke of the 'Crucifix in School Rooms' case:

Scrive al riguardo Vittorio Feltri: "L'offesa è grande. Insopportabile. Una prevaricazione. Un esproprio. Un Tizio entra nel tuo alloggio, si accomoda in poltrona, ha libero accesso al frigorifero, usa il tuo bagno e invece di ringraziare per l'ospitalità, ti ingiunge di togliere dalla parete quel “coso” lì. Sarà anche un coso ma permetti decido io se deve restare lì o sparire".[28] E Umberto Eco: "Invito a Adel Smith, dunque, e agli intolleranti fondamentalisti: capite e accettate usi e costumi del paese ospite"

Vittorio Feltri: "The offense is grievous. Intolerable. A prevarication. An affront. A guy enters your house, he sits on your chair, he has free access to your fridge, he uses your bathroom, and instead of thanking you for your hospitality, he orders you to remove from the wall 'that thing'. It may well be a 'thing' but if you will permit me, it is MINE decision if it should stay or leave"
Umberto Eco: "I invite Adel Smith and thus, all the Intolerant Fundamentalists to understand and accept the traditions and culture of the country that houses them."

If one emigrates in another country, one accepts the laws, rules and tradition of the country he enters.
Otherwise he can and should leave.

This isn't to say I approve of the Crucifix in the school rooms. However I do not approve for the same reasons the Atheists and Agnostics declared it nonviable: the Italian state should be 'secular' thus 'untied' from any type of confession or religious belief. Technically speaking, one should try and make a Government composed only of Atheists, with no religious believers within the rooms of the senate and the parliament.
(that is impossible, but one may hope)

So removing the Crucifix because 'it is lawfully hypocrite' is one thing. Removing it because 'It irks my own culture' isn't. You emigrated. You lost the 'battle of culture'. Your culture, your country, for YOU is 'inferior' to the one you emigrated to. Be it for work reasons, war or what-not, unless you return to your own country you are subtly claiming that your country is 'inferior' to the one you have emigrated to. And the country you have 'emigrated' to is naturally, in your opinion, superior in something (otherwise, why leave your own?) be it for 'peace' or 'work' or 'better living conditions' or 'sanity' or 'schooling'. The country who is Superior is such because she has a better culture, a better tradition, a better set of laws.
Otherwise, why emigrate there?
So it irks me when someone comes over and demands things changed 'because my beliefs are better'.

It's like leaving your leaking house, moving over to a new one and making Holes in the roof because 'my house had them and the wind was nice, though when it rains it leaks'.

//End Rant.

[Frumple]

The country who is Superior is such because she has a better culture, a better tradition, a better set of laws.

See, this is where your thought process kinda' messes up. When a person immigrates because of a specific reason, they're indeed saying that a particular facet of the society they're moving to is more advantageous for them, but that in no way suggests that the said culture is superior in all ways, or even a majority of ways. Even then "superior" does not mean "unable to be improved" and inferior does not mean "unable to contribute to improvement" -- and even that is assuming the two cultures in question are even particularly comparable, or perhaps that they're not simply interchangeable to the person in question.

Culture, tradition, and law are entirely likely to be separate things, sometimes subtly, sometimes drastically. Beyond that, temporary physical situations (particular boom in a certain resource, particularly advantageous geological or sociological features for particular sorts of research or endeavors, etc.) or factors divorced from cultural/legal baggage often cause temporary or permanent immigration for reasons entirely divorced from culture or the society inhabiting the particular geological region in question.

In many cases, people will move from somewhere they consider superior in all ways to exploit specific opportunity in other areas. You're going to have a hard time making the case that, say, the large body of western civilian contractors that lived/lives in the middle east and various wartorn nations temporarily (and in some cases permanently, at this point) did so because they considered the cultural entity that they went to inhabit to be what they considered (even implicitly) superior cultures, or that varying businesspeople who permanently (or, at the least, for very long periods) move to where their overseas operations are do so because the culture they're moving into is superior on all levels. I damn sure don't consider Florida to be a better state than, say, Washington, but I stay here primarily because of family. Not because of the state's laws, or culture, or opportunities. This is easily one of the shittiest states to live in in the union, in my opinion (and that's an opinion that's got a good chunk of support from the facts, bleh. Last time I checked, anyway.).

It's just a terribly strange claim to make, t'me. Better in one way =/= better in all ways, and there's no guarantee that particular one thing desired is caused or supported by the situation surrounding it.

So it irks me when someone comes over and demands things changed 'because my beliefs are better'.

It's like leaving your leaking house, moving over to a new one and making Holes in the roof because 'my house had them and the wind was nice, though when it rains it leaks'.

In many cases, to the person trying to improve things (from their view of it, anyway) it's more like leaving their termite infested house, moving over to a new one house and seeing holes in the roof and trying to plug them up. Patriotism doesn't mean blind adherence to what came before or a steadfast denial that what was can be improved, after all. It means wanting to make things better.

Would you not be equally irked if someone came over and demanded you did not fix the leaky roof of your new house because it was "better" windy?

'Course, you do need a better reason than personal appreciation for a particular belief set to justify wanting to actually implement it or parts of it... but that runs both ways, y'know? That's no reason to oppose change, either.

[Pnx]

In my case I emigrated because my father was offered large sums of money to do a job the company apparently felt the locals weren't capable of doing as well. It's also worth noting that I personally had no choice in the matter, as my mother put it at the time "You can come with us, or we can put you up for adoption" (and for those of you wondering, she was being flippant, I highly doubt she would have let me be adopted).

How does that fit into your picture?

[shadenight123]

In my case I emigrated because my father was offered large sums of money to do a job the company apparently felt the locals weren't capable of doing as well. It's also worth noting that I personally had no choice in the matter, as my mother put it at the time "You can come with us, or we can put you up for adoption" (and for those of you wondering, she was being flippant, I highly doubt she would have let me be adopted).

How does that fit into your picture?

The question concerns the individual and not whether he or she was forced or not. It's whether or not he accepts the deal or doesn't.

My family transferred to France for my father's job for a while. I learned French. I spoke French. I was friends with French People. By the time I left France I had the French accent.
I understood that for that particular moment, 'Italy' was inferior to France in some regards that my father believed in. It wasn't accepting it or not, it was understanding that since I emigrated I was a 'guest' in another country, and thus I followed their laws and traditions.
Even when 'forced' to follow, (angrily, i might add) I never reacted and accepted it.

My brother spent five months suspended from school, because he wanted to go back to Italy and 'refused to comprehend' the gibberish the French were saying.

Acceptance versus refusal to integrate.

The point is that once you Have the choice the fault is yours, whether you 'integrate' or not is something YOU decide. Not something your parents can decide for you. And i think I stated it was the 'You' who subtly implies it, otherwise why emigrate in the first place? in this case your father was simply offered a 'Superior' deal. Thus he left behind the 'inferior' deal.
It's logic, plain and simple. We move to the things that are 'better' and leave behind those that are 'worse'.
Accepting that when in another country is key to integration.

@Frumple:

The point is more thin to catch, I'll try and explain better:

Emigration means 'going from A to B because of X'
X is generally a positive thing. You emigrate for money, work opportunities, freedom or what not.
Maybe you emigrate to North Korea because Kim Jong offers you three thousand dollars in cash.
However You are making the choice.
You are choosing the pros and cons. You are the one claiming 'yeah, freedom in North Korea will be horrible, but the money offsets it! let's pack and go!'
If you actually go, then you cannot ask Kim Jong to let the people go free. You accepted the 'superiority' of his nation over your own beliefs and culture, all for money. (And if you say the opposite, prison is yours in his nation)
Superiority isn't the 'I'm better because everyone else is worse'. It's the 'I am leaving a situation that is worse in some aspect for one that is better in some but might be worse in others' but 'since I left, then I'm trading a 'generally average of 67 happiness' for a 'generally average of 70 happiness' or something like that. Otherwise, why emigrate?

(Generally average is considering all possible socio-economics connotation, freedoms and what not)

People who emigrate do so for a 'better thing', and in doing so they Should claim their previous country 'not on par' as long as they remain in the country they are in. That's the rule of guests in a house. You enter another man's house, and even if she or he might have a leaky roof, if they like it leaky...then why insist they fix it? They want it leaky, leave it leaky unless the house's owner asks you to repair it. In which case go ahead. Otherwise, leave it leaky.
They enjoy the rain.

[GlyphGryph]

But they aren't coming to live in YOUR house, they are coming to live in a house that YOU share with a dozen other people, and they are paying to live there and they've signed the new roommate agreement.

Yes, it is expected that the new roommate will respect the current tenants and get along with them as best as possible. If they move in and trash the place every night and play loud noise into the wee hours, the other roommates are well within their rights to think he should leave.

But just because you lived there first doesn't mean he has to agree with you over what colour to paint the walls, especially if there are a number of other roommates who have the same opinion he does who HAVE lived their a while. Things change. You might have liked the fact that before you got these new roommates, everyone did what you wanted them to do, but the fact is, it was NEVER your house. It was always a shared place, with multiple tenants paying their share, and that's the only reason it was any good for you, and you don't HAVE to like it if your position isn't as great now - if most of the other roommates think the newest roommate is right, you accept it.

[Frumple]

Otherwise, why emigrate?

There are reasons for emigrating besides personal happiness, yeah? Sometimes you move to improve things for the people in the area you're moving to, or to improve things back home (the latter in particular for work visa type situations).

People who emigrate do so for a 'better thing', and in doing so they Should claim their previous country 'not on par' as long as they remain in the country they are in. That's the rule of guests in a house. You enter another man's house, and even if she or he might have a leaky roof, if they like it leaky...then why insist they fix it? They want it leaky, leave it leaky unless the house's owner asks you to repair it. In which case go ahead. Otherwise, leave it leaky.
They enjoy the rain.

Except... the person in question isn't a guest in a house, exactly. They're a person trying to build their own home, somewhere else. In this case, perhaps, attached in part to someone else's home, yes, but that's no reason not to try to fix their own roof.

And again... even if they should claim that their previous country is not on par, (Which is a stronger statement than I'd accept, really. Rule of guests around here doesn't specify you're supposed to badmouth your own home, after all. Perhaps it is different in your area?) that doesn't entail that the country they're in cannot be improved, or that aspects of their previous country cannot be used to improve their current. It's... fairly common where I'm at for guests, especially long term ones with skillsets or experiences capable of being utilized to improve the place they're staying, to, y'know, offer to help out and improve things. Sometimes using their previous residences as a base pattern for the upgrades. Perhaps the guest knows of a way to build something that can keep things rainy to the desired degree without the water damage caused by leaks, yeah?

It's not really a case where I'd suggest "stay quiet until help is requested" is appropriate action. If you love the place you're in, and you believe you see a way to improve it, you should make the offer and try to convince others of the opportunity for improvement, yes?

[Vector]

Technically speaking, one should try and make a Government composed only of Atheists, with no religious believers within the rooms of the senate and the parliament.

... Well that's kind of offensive.

I'm just here to point out how neutered and hollow this thread is until people begin talking earnestly about the issues that are really in people's minds.

Uh... you make a lot of assumptions there about what and how other people think, dude.  I'm not concerned with Islamism.  I'm concerned with ethnic cleansing.  It sort of seems that you think we should all be concerned with the people-in-power point of view.

Like, do you think a Muslim visiting this thread would be feeling most directly threatened by radical Islamists, and Islam in general?  I'm doubting it.  Please don't erase people or make too many assumptions about your audience.

[Urist McDwarfFortress]

To me, the thing that makes Islam so much worse than most other religions is that the Quran explicitly commands violence against non-Muslims. A quick skim through the Quran easily yields 4 explicit commandments to kill any and all non-Muslim:

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip Allah's Purpose. Lo! they cannot escape.  Make ready for them all thou canst of armed force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more unbelief and religion should be only for Allah"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
(Jizya is the tax on non-Muslim according to Sharia law. Historically, it is Islam's way of financially forcing conversion) ("People of the Book" are the other Abrahamic religions, namely: Jews and Christians)

Christianity, and most other world religions can be (and have been) used to inspire violence, but their holy books make it pretty clear that this violence is wrong. According to the Bible, for example, it is wrong to murder someone because of their belief. With Islam, it is the exact opposite. According to the Quran, it is wrong for a Muslims to NOT commit violence against a non-Muslim!

Clearly, (thankfully) most Muslims do not follow this commandment. The vast majority of Muslims are good people who are disgusted by the violence committed in the name of their religion. However, it is impossible to deny that violence is what is taught by Islam, even if most Muslims don't follow this teaching. When a Muslim does commit violence in the name of his religion, it is the religion itself that is at fault.

Call me a hater if you want. Flag me if you want. But you can't deny what is written in their own book.

[Vector]

Yeah, uh, Book of Leviticus, anyone?

That's like saying because there's some nutso parts of the Bible, modern Christianity is defined by them.  So for now on, I'm going to look at Christians like slave-owners who like stoning people to death, because most of the big modern slave trade was after all started by Christians and just look at America's wars!  They're pretty violent.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I personally love that most:

Quran (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve

Dehumanizing like that is something very, very close to Nazi ideology.

Vector
Book of Levictus  is quite different thing. Bible has a lot of violence inside (as well as incest, slavery and other unpleasant stuff) but you'll not find anything like "Kill those stinky non-believers!!"

[GlyphGryph]

"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

td;dr - If someone believe a religion other than this one, kill those motherfuckers for that wickedness.

[shadenight123]

Vector: I was referring to the Italian charter. Since it claims 'the state must be secular' then it comes to term it should be made of 'secular' people. Of course nobody does that nor nobody fights for it, but...'it's written there'.

@Glyph:

Now, let's say the concept is right, because it is the 'correct' idea of 'goodness of the majority'. The problem lies when the majority is wrong. the idea that the majority is right on the color of the walls is inconsequential.
The fact would rather be: the majority wants all the couches changed in the apartment. You have a couch in your room that was of your grandmother. They'll take that couch only over your dead body.
Here, this is a situation.
The 'shared' house is a house you lived in for decades. You know every bit of it. You like every bit of it. Changing the color of the walls is a thing that can be 'fixed' eventually, but the couch of your grandmother? It's yours. Only yours. Yours. And they want it removed because they are changing all the couches.
You can say no. You will say no.
And they will tell the others that you're just a bastard who doesn't want to work with the others and prefers dingy old couches. It never mattered it was of your grandmother... 'it's just a couch' the others will say.
Personal values of object is subjective. Painting the walls might seem nothing to the external guest who arrives last, but is deeply rooted in those who were there first.
Sure, some might agree, others won't, and sure, maybe they'll get to change the walls color...but the question is that if someone entered the 'shared apartment' because he liked it better, why should he change it to become like the old one? And if he did it because of need, has he really the right to demand the color changed when he is given onto freely food and shelter?

@Frumple

You're right on the leaked roof. One should offer, and wait the answer. And if something is better, than you should 'offer' to improve, but not 'improve by force'.
Which is what 'Demanding removal of crucifixes from school' is when you actually go in the classroom, grab the crucifix and throw it out of the window by force.

We can try and change the metaphors we use, from 'guest' to 'shared house' to 'build a house nearby' but in the end the fact remains that when something changes, we naturally dislike it unless we were Told about it, and we Approve of it.
if tomorrow I came and changed your lock, (to a newer version) painted your house with thermal paint (for better heating) gave you new windows and removed your grandfather's clock (which you love) to put in place a digital newer one.
Would you actually say 'wonderful!' or demand where the grandfather clock went?

[GlyphGryph]

A few more:
"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)"

"everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) "

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) "

and Shadenight, they are not guests. They are new roommates. That's the entire point.

[Urist McDwarfFortress]

All those Bible quotes refer specifically to apostates (ie. people who used to belong to the Jewish faith, but then left to follow other gods). I'm not saying that this teaching isn't despicable, because it is. But Islam teaches the same thing, AND they add the commandment to kill ANY and ALL non-Muslims on top of that. Sure Christianity teaches some evil, but Islam teaches that same evil plus an extra, heaping topping of super-evil!