Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 333

Thread: French Presidential Election

  1. #61
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,422

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Diverse countries have a lot of civil wars too (between majority factions, with separatism on top of this), and the odd genocide every now and then. I suspect that recent or current authoritarian rule could be a factor in many civil wars.
    So nations should all be based around ancient tribes and basically only perform inbreeding?
    What if two family members are "too diverse" to be able to stand eachother?
    Where does it end?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Very diverse; many relatively recent imperial acquisitions still under control.
    Seemingly pretty diverse, also a theocracy.
    One of the most extreme dictatorships in history.[/QUOTE]

    Russia is not very diverse, keeping imperial acquisitions under control is not necessarily a matter of different ethnicities.
    And unless I forgot something, you just entered the system of government as a second factor and basically moved the goalposts?

    Might as well name the current USA and Poland though. The first creates a non-ethnic but national homogeneity (in the context of that debate, the heterogeneity of the nation usually plays no role) and currently blames China, Mexico, ISIS, etc. for all of its problems, the second flat out refuses most immigration for the reasons you name and still blames a lot of its problems on Russia, Germany or both.

    The only thing I see here is that people who prefer homogeneity also blame all their problems on others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Then you could have larger ethnicities dominating smaller ones.
    You always have larger groups dominating smaller ones, you can have one ethnicity where the conservatives dominate the progressives, how is that any better?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    The Serb assassin.
    Gross oversimplification, but even if we ignore that, it only shows that people who want homogeneity always cause trouble, it says nothing about the quality of their ideals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Those other groups typically went for independence when they saw a chance, either with or without violence, instead of focusing on representation.
    That doesn't make it a good idea. People also typically went for empire building over isolationism when they saw a chance, thus increasing diversity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    In typical democratic countries: a question of technology as much as anything else.
    I don't think that having a chat buddy is quite the same as having a girlfriend in another country, but the latter would be a "threat to homogeneity", no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    You'll note that the 'worst' things typically were carried out by dictatorships.
    So democracy and not homogeneity is the issue here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    EDIT: Also somewhat ironic to bring up the US, where the majority population consists of mixed immigrant populations. A new nation grew to replace the old ones.
    The US still creates a quasi-homogeneity, especially when it comes to international relations. You say yourself that it has a majority population, so you seem to acknowledge that that group has some kind of homogeneity. Was their civil war an immigration problem now? If so, how?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    A strategy can be better than another both in the short and long term if the other strategy is sufficiently bad.
    Indeed, that's why most democracies don't go for the idea of soft ethnic cleansing.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  2. #62
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,058

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "Is banning religions any better?" Much better. Russian is not an ideology. Religions are ideologies and based on very dodgy texts, to say it mildly...
    So you would second banning an ideology? The communist one, for instance, and the party that propagates its tenets?

  3. #63
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,489

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    I am to ban any ideology based which is against human rights, promotes inequality, violent expansion and didn't change their original texts. If the ideology changed and became in line with the laws, no.
    So, communist one in a modern version as it is in the main democratic countries is not be banned.
    I do not want to banm ideology on past actions. Same applies for others ideologies.
    However, contrary to ideologies being written by humans so can be amended, changed and improved, ideologies based on revealed and sacred texts spoken by a deity cannot be amended, changed or modified, or under the admittance that the deity was wrong at the first audience.
    In you want to ban communism, you have to came with the actual platform and shows where this platform breach the human right laws.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  4. #64
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,613

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    I am to ban any ideology based which is against human rights, promotes inequality, violent expansion and didn't change their original texts. If the ideology changed and became in line with the laws, no.
    So, communist one in a modern version as it is in the main democratic countries is not be banned.
    I do not want to banm ideology on past actions. Same applies for others ideologies.
    However, contrary to ideologies being written by humans so can be amended, changed and improved, ideologies based on revealed and sacred texts spoken by a deity cannot be amended, changed or modified, or under the admittance that the deity was wrong at the first audience.
    In you want to ban communism, you have to came with the actual platform and shows where this platform breach the human right laws.
    You'll have banned Capitalism, then.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  5. #65
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,489

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Good question but irrelevant. Where is the ideological book describing Capitalism? The consequences of bad capitalism (or bad communism) are not in the platform but in the actions of states or individuals. Is Condor operation inscribe in capitalism? Or was it H Kissinger decision?
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  6. #66
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,058

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    I am to ban any ideology based which is against human rights, promotes inequality, violent expansion and didn't change their original texts.
    If communists promoted "expropriation of expropriators", e.i. taking away private property to make everyone equal, is it the way to promote equality?

    Is not the tenet of the export of revolution a kind of expansion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    So, communist one in a modern version as it is in the main democratic countries is not be banned. I do not want to banm ideology on past actions. Same applies for others ideologies.
    So if nazis come up with some modern version of their ideology (and perhaps they already have), will you stand for their right to be represented on the political arena?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    However, contrary to ideologies being written by humans so can be amended, changed and improved, ideologies based on revealed and sacred texts spoken by a deity cannot be amended, changed or modified, or under the admittance that the deity was wrong at the first audience.
    Religions have been always subject to modification which resulted in appearance of new religions, for instance judaism and christianity, or new confessions of the same religions (shia and sunni islam).

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    In you want to ban communism, you have to came with the actual platform and shows where this platform breach the human right laws.
    So whatever communists at power did, you can't ban the ideology they steered by?

    But whatever reasons for banning religion(s) you may forward, what about the people who will persist in worshipping them? What will you do with them? Proclaim them outlaws? Persecute them?
    Last edited by Gilrandir; 01-11-2017 at 08:59.

  7. #67
    Hǫr­ar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    So nations should all be based around ancient tribes and basically only perform inbreeding?
    A bit late for this solution of yours.

    What if two family members are "too diverse" to be able to stand eachother?
    I don't think the solution involves mass-immigration.

    Russia is not very diverse, keeping imperial acquisitions under control is not necessarily a matter of different ethnicities.
    In Russia's case, it is. Forgotten about Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan? That's just the beginning.

    And unless I forgot something, you just entered the system of government as a second factor and basically moved the goalposts?
    The ultimate point has of course to be how diversity and homogeneity has affected the outcome. The hostile rhetoric of the North Korean government can be seen as a way to justify the extreme authoritarianism and seems primarily to be directed at ideological rather than ethnic enemies.


    Might as well name the current USA and Poland though. The first creates a non-ethnic but national homogeneity (in the context of that debate, the heterogeneity of the nation usually plays no role) and currently blames China, Mexico, ISIS, etc. for all of its problems, the second flat out refuses most immigration for the reasons you name and still blames a lot of its problems on Russia, Germany or both.


    The only thing I see here is that people who prefer homogeneity also blame all their problems on others.
    The US is still very diverse, and it seems quite normal for populists in any country to blame problems on outside forces.


    You always have larger groups dominating smaller ones, you can have one ethnicity where the conservatives dominate the progressives, how is that any better?
    You can chose which party to join, but you cannot chose your ethnicity.


    Gross oversimplification, but even if we ignore that, it only shows that people who want homogeneity always cause trouble, it says nothing about the quality of their ideals.
    I would say that is having it upside down. Such people come into existence when an ethnic group is scattered over several different countries in a region (and preferably where it forms a minority, or the use of force would be more difficult to justify). If that weren't the case, they wouldn't have any unification to fight for.


    That doesn't make it a good idea. People also typically went for empire building over isolationism when they saw a chance, thus increasing diversity.
    It is what tends to happen; diverse entities created by force or without the support of the people it includes seems to often be rather unstable in the long run. Once the reelvant people actually get to have their voices heard, they tend to want independence. And that's not strange if they form a minority - their risk becoming outvoted on many or most issues important to them. If they form a majority, the current rulers would probably rather let them go than give them numerically fair representation (think of the British parliament dominated by MPs from India; not a very probable or stable scenario).

    I don't think that having a chat buddy is quite the same as having a girlfriend in another country, but the latter would be a "threat to homogeneity", no?
    Unlikely, and people can migrate even if the borders are open for free movement; it would just (in my scenario) be in much smaller amounts (at least for permanent settlement). If migration levels are sufficiently low and from sufficiently similar cultures, assimilation would be very high for just a couple of generations.

    So democracy and not homogeneity is the issue here?
    Dicatorships in general seem to do the more extreme things like these. Stalin deported entire ethnic groups that were thought of as unreliable, and he came from a minority population himself (Georgian) within a diverse empire.


    The US still creates a quasi-homogeneity, especially when it comes to international relations. You say yourself that it has a majority population, so you seem to acknowledge that that group has some kind of homogeneity.
    Yes, but this homogeneous (not necessarily in all senses) came from a heterogeneous population, so this new homogeneous population did not at all become any more tolerant just because it has no concept of a nation stretching back more a thousand years or more.

    Was their civil war an immigration problem now? If so, how?
    I just said that some civil wars are between majority factions.

    Indeed, that's why most democracies don't go for the idea of soft ethnic cleansing.
    Democracies don't really have any solid long-term strategy, they can zigzag like a person with a split personality from election to election. Democracies are probably not the best source for long-term strategies (not the typical dictatorship, either).
    Last edited by Viking; 01-11-2017 at 11:14.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  8. #68
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,422

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    A bit late for this solution of yours.
    *of mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    I don't think the solution involves mass-immigration.
    Why? They should adopt 12 Afroasian children IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    In Russia's case, it is. Forgotten about Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan? That's just the beginning.
    How are theses cases comparable to the effects of the current migrant crisis?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    The US is still very diverse, and it seems quite normal for populists in any country to blame problems on outside forces.
    And who usually votes for populists in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    You can chose which party to join, but you cannot chose your ethnicity.
    Is that really a choice or the predictable outcome of your environment and circumstances?
    How likely is it for a Communist party member to make the choice to join the NSDAP?
    And don't say Horst Mahler.


    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    I would say that is having it upside down. Such people come into existence when an ethnic group is scattered over several different countries in a region (and preferably where it forms a minority, or the use of force would be more difficult to justify). If that weren't the case, they wouldn't have any unification to fight for.
    No, you're having it upside down. These people come into existance because they and the people around them still care about ethnicity in the first place. There may be an innate desire to form in-groups, but it doesn't necessarily have to be based on ethnicity. It's not like you're best friends with every Norwegian, or is it?
    Otherwise we'll get back to the best husband being your cousin and so on... Or would you call that normal/desirable human behavior now?
    Ethnicity itself is an artificial social construct, family is a biological/natural one. Might even say at this point that you can choose your ethnicity as much as the party to join.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    It is what tends to happen; diverse entities created by force or without the support of the people it includes seems to often be rather unstable in the long run. Once the reelvant people actually get to have their voices heard, they tend to want independence. And that's not strange if they form a minority - their risk becoming outvoted on many or most issues important to them. If they form a majority, the current rulers would probably rather let them go than give them numerically fair representation (think of the British parliament dominated by MPs from India; not a very probable or stable scenario).
    That's all learned behavior again, your opinion on ethnicity is a choice. You talk about it as though it were unchangeable. You even exclude cases where the mixing has "the support of the people it includes", so you basically acknowledge the existence of people who can just live and let live instead of making a big fuss for no good reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Unlikely, and people can migrate even if the borders are open for free movement; it would just (in my scenario) be in much smaller amounts (at least for permanent settlement). If migration levels are sufficiently low and from sufficiently similar cultures, assimilation would be very high for just a couple of generations.
    I do not disagree that long-term migration should not be as high as it was in 2015 or 2016, but there are plenty of other reasons for that besides peoples' irrational fears of the boogeyman. The other issue is that migration is so high in the first place because we have so many individual competing nations and the losers don't all just want to sit on their asses and wait until they die. The same reason that made people vote for Trump is why sub-saharan Africans want to come to Europe (and Mexicans to the US). they lost in the economic game and want a job. The only question is which one of the losers succeeds in beating the other losers before the machines make us all lose anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Yes, but this homogeneous (not necessarily in all senses) came from a heterogeneous population, so this new homogeneous population did not at all become any more tolerant just because it has no concept of a nation stretching back more a thousand years or more.
    Which was never relevant anyway. The groups that made up the new majority had plenty of ethnic infighting in the beginning, the immigrants were always blamed until new immigrants came and the old immigrants became part of the in-group. Which just goes to show that ethnic differences are a choice/based on circumstances and should usually not be seen as some kind of universal truth.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  9. #69
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,613

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    Good question but irrelevant. Where is the ideological book describing Capitalism? The consequences of bad capitalism (or bad communism) are not in the platform but in the actions of states or individuals. Is Condor operation inscribe in capitalism? Or was it H Kissinger decision?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisi...ral_Sentiments

    Adam Smith actually propounded upon a doctrine of beneficial selfishness. His writing and those who follow him may well be responsible for not only the recent financial crisis but also the general unravelling of social fabric in Europe.

    Smith did not, however, advocate slum landlords or dismantling companies and selling them off for parts. Marx did not advocate Gulags and Jesus preached absolute pacifism.

    Either God is real and religion is special of He isn't and it isn't.

    You can't say God is a made up idea and then say religion is still different to any other philosophy or ideology.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  10. #70
    Hǫr­ar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    *of mine.
    Yes, of thine (aka straw manning).

    How are theses cases comparable to the effects of the current migrant crisis?
    Just follow the chain of quotes:

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    The problem with homogeneous groups of people is that they tend to blame all their problems on some outside group and this leads to more and more conflict.
    Is Putin blaming the Chechens and the Ingush? No, he is blaming you and your homosexual goldfish. This is Dagestan:

    The Avars form the largest ethnic group and account for about a fifth of the population. A further substantial proportion is made up of Dargins, Kumyks and Lezgins. About 10 per cent are ethnic Russians. There are also Laks, Tabasarans and Nogai, to name but a few of the other significant groups.

    The republic's constitution declares the protection of the interests of all of Dagestan's peoples to be a fundamental principle. It is a delicate balance to maintain, in what is Russia's most ethnically diverse province.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/co...es/3659904.stm

    In 2011, a BBC article proclaimed Dagestan to be the most dangerous place in Europe:

    Once it was Chechnya, today it is the republic of Dagestan on the Caspian Sea that is the most explosive place in Russia - and in Europe. There are bomb attacks almost daily, shootouts between police and militants, tales of torture and of people going missing.
    Sounds a bit like Malm÷, maybe on steroids.

    And who usually votes for populists in the first place?
    Homo sapiens sapiens.

    Is that really a choice or the predictable outcome of your environment and circumstances?
    Many signals for ethnic belonging are genetic; and even when they aren't, they can be difficult to fake (like language and accent).

    How likely is it for a Communist party member to make the choice to join the NSDAP?
    And don't say Horst Mahler.
    If you want to take part in the camaraderie and corruption, just sign up to join the party. No cosmetic surgery needed.

    Ethnicity itself is an artificial social construct, family is a biological/natural one.

    [...]

    That's all learned behavior again, your opinion on ethnicity is a choice. You talk about it as though it were unchangeable.
    In theory, you can separate the biology (phenotype) and culture of an ethnicity, but in practice, it's typically not quite that simple.

    (in the same sense as ethnicity being an 'artificial social construct', so is humanity: a collection of organisms that happen to share a lot of DNA and that can often interbreed)

    You even exclude cases where the mixing has "the support of the people it includes", so you basically acknowledge the existence of people who can just live and let live instead of making a big fuss for no good reason.
    Not quite sure what you are referring to here.

    I do not disagree that long-term migration should not be as high as it was in 2015 or 2016
    I think the immigration rates in previous years have also been too high in many countries; the current issues in countries like France, Sweden and the UK are primarily not about the last couple of years of immigration, but go back a long time.

    Which was never relevant anyway. The groups that made up the new majority had plenty of ethnic infighting in the beginning, the immigrants were always blamed until new immigrants came and the old immigrants became part of the in-group. Which just goes to show that ethnic differences are a choice/based on circumstances and should usually not be seen as some kind of universal truth.
    They were all from Europe, so it's not very shocking that the assimilation was swift. Since Mexico also has been heavily influenced by a European culture (Spain), including in terms of religion, they too might not have a hard time assimilating, although many of them might be more strongly tagged as out-group by looking differently (and again, concerns about too many immigrating over a too short period of time don't go away).
    Last edited by Viking; 01-11-2017 at 16:48.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  11. #71
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,489

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    "If communists promoted "expropriation of expropriators", e.i. taking away private property to make everyone equal, is it the way to promote equality?" Expropriate is a right that any State got in their laws. I think the one who invented the notion in France was Napoleon III in 1852, hardly a communist.

    "Is not the tenet of the export of revolution a kind of expansion?" It was not a tenet of Communism, but a debate within the Communist Party. I sort of remember that Stalin was against, Trotsky for. Stalin won.
    Now, you have to show me in a nowadays communist platform where the "export of revolution by force" is written.

    "So if nazis come up with some modern version of their ideology (and perhaps they already have), will you stand for their right to be represented on the political arena?" Depending of the modern version of their ideology. However, the basis of Nazi ideology being the same than ISIL, racism, inequality, cult of death and violence and porn, if they change all these items, they won't be anymore Nazi... So the question is not really one...

    "Religions have been always subject to modification which resulted in appearance of new religions, for instance judaism and christianity, or new confessions of the same religions (shia and sunni islam)." They still refer to the same books accepting slavery, inequality, slaughters and aggression. So until they come with an explanation how their Gods were wrong the 1st time he/she/it came up with the holy texts... Jesus recognise the Old Testament, so does Islam. The difference between Shia and Sunni is mainly due to a different opinion about who was the heir of Mohammed, not the core of the text.

    "So whatever communists at power did, you can't ban the ideology they steered by?" Yes, because there are different streams in communism as you know. Putting in the same bags the Communist executed by Stalin with Stalin is ridiculous. And this is the most best known example. Do you want to ban Social Democrat Parties in the world because dictatorship this ideology imposed in Europe (Greece, Portugal, France, etc)?

    "But whatever reasons for banning religion(s) you may forward, what about the people who will persist in worshipping them? What will you do with them? Proclaim them outlaws? Persecute them?" Didn't say it was possible. I just said in order to avoid a good reason for war would be the vanishing of religions. They will hopefully disappeared, but it will under the flamethrower of knowledge and reason, Inch'allah...

    "You can't say God is a made up idea and then say religion is still different to any other philosophy or ideology." And it is why I didn't say so. I am saying Religions are based on books their followers claim being the word of God. So, as such, God being truthful and by definition incapable of mistake, it can't be change. So if God said few centuries ago it is ok to have slaves, to rape and conquered others lands, it is valid for ever as God never specify a end date. So, Religions have option one to declare God was wrong, not good, option two, hiding the fact God was wrong, much better. Problem with option 2 is when some idiots come-up with original texts and argue rightly God never oppose slavery, rape, genocide and conquests.
    But the way, didn't Jesus expelled the priest from the Temple with a whip? Is it the "absolute pacifism" he preached for? They were just earning the crust...
    "Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
    Last edited by Brenus; 01-11-2017 at 19:17.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  12. #72
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,613

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    And it is why I didn't say so. I am saying Religions are based on books their followers claim being the word of God. So, as such, God being truthful and by definition incapable of mistake, it can't be change. So if God said few centuries ago it is ok to have slaves, to rape and conquered others lands, it is valid for ever as God never specify a end date. So, Religions have option one to declare God was wrong, not good, option two, hiding the fact God was wrong, much better. Problem with option 2 is when some idiots come-up with original texts and argue rightly God never oppose slavery, rape, genocide and conquests.
    But the way, didn't Jesus expelled the priest from the Temple with a whip? Is it the "absolute pacifism" he preached for? They were just earning the crust...
    "Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
    Oh, look, he quotes a single line out of context without understanding it. Evangelicals do that.

    Please now go and read verses Matthew 10:34-42, inclusive.

    That massage is not about violence but about strife between families - something anyone in a mixed-religion family can attest to. One parent is a Christian, the other an Atheist, or a Muslim, or a Jew, etc... Jesus still preached absolute pacifism, but pacifism doesn't mean there is no strife between people, it means you don't resort to violence to get your way.

    Do better in future.

    As to the episode with the whip, it always amazes me how often this is misinterpreted, everything Jesus says and does is a sort of performance, a way of illustrating his teachings. When he drives the money-lenders and the merchants (not the priests) out of the Temple with a whip his a Son expelling those people from his Father's House. He's turfing out the squatters who've taken up residence whilst dad was away. That's why he uses the whip.

    As to the idea that a given religious writing "cannot change" this is infantile. Although great strain has been taken by copyists to accurately reproduce the text by hand it has ALWAYS been acknowledged that these copies are imperfect, and for this reason earlier copies have always been preferred. This goes back in the christian tradition at least as far as Jerome.

    Again, you are constructing a caricature of a Christian from stereotypes of ignorant evangelicals, then reading that onto mainstream Christianity and every other religion.

    I've been saying this for a decade now, and you've been here all that time so there is no excuse for this sort of sloppy argument. Buck up or I'll file a report with the moderators and let them decide whether your response to my point is spam or not.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  13. #73
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,422

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Just follow the chain of quotes:

    Is Putin blaming the Chechens and the Ingush? No, he is blaming you and your homosexual goldfish. This is Dagestan:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/co...es/3659904.stm

    In 2011, a BBC article proclaimed Dagestan to be the most dangerous place in Europe:

    Sounds a bit like Malm÷, maybe on steroids.
    Where is the mass immigration and the huge ethnic difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Many signals for ethnic belonging are genetic; and even when they aren't, they can be difficult to fake (like language and accent).

    If you want to take part in the camaraderie and corruption, just sign up to join the party. No cosmetic surgery needed.
    What about black-skinned people who grew up here and have our culture?
    Do they need cosmetic surgery to get our ethnicity? Bleach their skin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    In theory, you can separate the biology (phenotype) and culture of an ethnicity, but in practice, it's typically not quite that simple.

    (in the same sense as ethnicity being an 'artificial social construct', so is humanity: a collection of organisms that happen to share a lot of DNA and that can often interbreed)
    So we can just continue immigration if we just stop making a big deal out of it?
    The inter-ethnic hatred is not an unchangeable fact after all and we have the choice to just stop it.
    Yay!

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Not quite sure what you are referring to here.
    Mixed-ethnic marriages for example. They don't seem to inevitably murder eachother whereas you seem to say that this were the case when you mix ethnicities on a national level. My point is that you can mix them as long as the people on both sides do not make a big deal about it, which is a decision on the part of those people, a matter of education, upbringing or whatever (we hardly discuss that part here it seems).

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    I think the immigration rates in previous years have also been too high in many countries; the current issues in countries like France, Sweden and the UK are primarily not about the last couple of years of immigration, but go back a long time.
    I think the way immigration has been treated as a self-solving issue of sorts was wrong.
    Immigrants are treated the wrong way, are not introduced to and held to our basic standards and neither was much being done about the hostility they received early on from the side of the natives. There was lots of ghettoization and group-building around ethnic lines, that just exaggerates the differences. That is why I say the problem are not the ethnicities but how people handle them. Surely the "ethnic" hardliners who do not want to talk should be sent back home, I applaud e.g. the decision of the European court not to allow Muslims to remove their girls from swimming lectures just because they want everything to be more like home where girls and boys are seperated. People who come here should be willing to accept the basic tenets of our culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    They were all from Europe, so it's not very shocking that the assimilation was swift. Since Mexico also has been heavily influenced by a European culture (Spain), including in terms of religion, they too might not have a hard time assimilating, although many of them might be more strongly tagged as out-group by looking differently (and again, concerns about too many immigrating over a too short period of time don't go away).
    Then I'm sure the assimilation of the areas conquered by Russia will be swift as well, they only assimilate neighbors after all.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  14. #74
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,489

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    "That massage is not about violence but about strife between families - something anyone in a mixed-religion family can attest to. One parent is a Christian, the other an Atheist, or a Muslim, or a Jew, etc... Jesus still preached absolute pacifism, but pacifism doesn't mean there is no strife between people, it means you don't resort to violence to get your way." Well, that is YOUR interpretation. A sword is a weapon, a strike, not a strife. You can say whatever you want...

    "As to the idea that a given religious writing "cannot change" this is infantile. Although great strain has been taken by copyists to accurately reproduce the text by hand it has ALWAYS been acknowledged that these copies are imperfect, and for this reason earlier copies have always been preferred. This goes back in the christian tradition at least as far as Jerome" Exactly!!! So the pretendence of religious people to know the alleged words of God is absurd. But when the text is clear, as slavery, slaughters, genocide, burning witches etc, nothing changed. Open your bible and these words are still nowadays in it, clear, precise, concise. Words of God or not? Religions say yes. Jesus did say, as much of the witnesses are telling as, that the Old Testament is still valid, so invasions, rape, slaughters are legitimate. It was with these texts that slavery was organised in the 3 Americas... Tell me if you dare that slavery is not allowed in the Bible!!!
    So the Bible is against one of the basic Human Right. The Bible stated that women are inferior to men. The Bible gave numerous examples of slaughters not only authorised but ordered by the Divinity... All these are against the Humanity made rights.

    "I've been saying this for a decade now, and you've been here all that time so there is no excuse for this sort of sloppy argument. Buck up or I'll file a report with the moderators and let them decide whether your response to my point is spam or not." Still better than to be burned by the Holy Inquisition, I suppose.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  15. #75
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,613

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    Well, that is YOUR interpretation. A sword is a weapon, a strike, not a strife. You can say whatever you want...
    Taken in the context of what happens later in the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus heals the slave of the Temple priest after Peter cuts off his ear, it's pretty clear.

    That's Matthew 25.47-56.

    Verse 51-25 Specifically:

    Suddenly, one of those who was with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. / Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

    If you read the Gospel all in one sitting, as you should, then it's quite clear that the "sword" Jesus is referring to earlier is not a literal sword, it is a sword of division. Jesus' "sword" is his message, and when he says "I have not come to bring peace" he is saying that the Christian message will not bring harmony but diviosn, because there will be those who accept it and those who reject it.

    He also said Christians would be mocked.

    Now, here you are two millennia later laughing at me and miss-quoting the Gospels, so I'd say he was an excellent judge of human nature.

    Exactly!!! So the pretendence of religious people to know the alleged words of God is absurd. But when the text is clear, as slavery, slaughters, genocide, burning witches etc, nothing changed. Open your bible and these words are still nowadays in it, clear, precise, concise. Words of God or not? Religions say yes. Jesus did say, as much of the witnesses are telling as, that the Old Testament is still valid, so invasions, rape, slaughters are legitimate. It was with these texts that slavery was organised in the 3 Americas... Tell me if you dare that slavery is not allowed in the Bible!!!
    So the Bible is against one of the basic Human Right. The Bible stated that women are inferior to men. The Bible gave numerous examples of slaughters not only authorised but ordered by the Divinity... All these are against the Humanity made rights.
    Straw man - the position of the VAST majority of Christians and especially Christian doctors is that the Bible is the Word of God as recorded by man. There is no monolithic "religions", there are a few billion people who follow a variety of religious traditions originating from various different parts of the planet. Even if you take the largest group, Roman Catholics, you'll still find a wide variety of views on many topics.

    There's also absolutely nothing about "witches" in the Bible at all. That whole thing stems from a famously bad translation in the KJV, where it says "Witch" it should probably say "Necromancer", and even if it does says "Sorceress" that doesn't mean the same as a Demon-following Witch. We're not actually sure what sort of Sorcery women were doing in ancient Israel, so we don't really understand the import of the condemnation.

    Hell, the "Bible" doesn't even really exist! It's a group of writings (as in the title), an anthology and the various Christian groups can't even agree what should be included and what shouldn't. Even with Jews, who've had much longer to think about this, I don't believe there's agreement on the content of the Rabbicic writings or an awful lot beyond the basic five books of the Torah.

    Still better than to be burned by the Holy Inquisition, I suppose.
    Maybe try engaging with other people instead of just mocking them? You might learn something despite yourself, maybe your views of other people are capable of evolution.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  16. #76
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,489

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    PVP, what you failed to understand is I don't care of what Gospel or Holy Books are saying. What I care is what people are doing with it. You probably know that I am an atheist, so I don't believe in any deity/ies. It doesn't mean I don't have a set of beliefs, it just mean I don't believe in a Super ET creator of the world.
    I mostly agree with what you said about translation and as I speak several languages, I can tell you that what define a language are the words that can't be fully translated, as alien in French (the word Útranger will not give the full meaning) or the serbian word "inat" (pride which will push to take a decision against your own good).
    However, my point is not a theological debate. My point was and is Holy Texts are words of God in the mainstream religions. As such, they can't be modified, but interpreted. But they still remain in the book.
    And your reading of the word "sword" is a good example. Your interpretation is perhaps valid. But when a extremist Christian just read the word and read as literal, he/she can justify any violent action by the Bible.
    So, when political platforms can be updated to meet modern standards (i.e. communist doctrine is now fully aware that dictatorship is not an option), a Holy Text can't.
    We both know it was done in the past, and this not the argument.

    "Maybe try engaging with other people instead of just mocking them?" Well, I don't react very well under "threat". And it is honestly a better thing to be reported to a moderation on a website than to be reported to the Inquisition, you should agree that it is an improvement... Now, if it really hurts you, I apologise.
    Last edited by Brenus; 01-12-2017 at 07:23.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  17. #77
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,058

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    *
    Ethnicity itself is an artificial social construct, family is a biological/natural one.
    All society groups are artificial constructs, including the family (if we speak of two (or more) people that share houshold, bed, finances, etc. If we speak of family as of parents and children, then they are biological group).

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "If communists promoted "expropriation of expropriators", e.i. taking away private property to make everyone equal, is it the way to promote equality?" Expropriate is a right that any State got in their laws. I think the one who invented the notion in France was Napoleon III in 1852, hardly a communist.
    What's the difference who invented the term? Communists incorporated it into the doctrines and, which is more important, put it into practice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "Is not the tenet of the export of revolution a kind of expansion?" It was not a tenet of Communism, but a debate within the Communist Party. I sort of remember that Stalin was against, Trotsky for. Stalin won.
    Perhaps there was a debate, but the tenet itself was forwarded by Lenin:

    The victorious proletariat… having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would confront the rest of the capitalist world, attract to itself the oppressed classes of other countries, raise revolts among them against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity, come out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. – V.I. Lenin, The United States of Europe Slogan (1915), Selected Works, English edition, Volume 5 (1936), p. 14.

    Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. – J.V. Stalin, Foundations of Leninism (April 1924), Works, English edition, Volume 6 (1953), p. 111.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "So if nazis come up with some modern version of their ideology (and perhaps they already have), will you stand for their right to be represented on the political arena?" Depending of the modern version of their ideology. However, the basis of Nazi ideology being the same than ISIL, racism, inequality, cult of death and violence and porn, if they change all these items, they won't be anymore Nazi... So the question is not really one...
    I don't know such minute details of nazi ideology, so would you be so kind as to prove the existence of such tenets as cult of death and porn in them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "Religions have been always subject to modification which resulted in appearance of new religions, for instance judaism and christianity, or new confessions of the same religions (shia and sunni islam)." They still refer to the same books accepting slavery, inequality, slaughters and aggression. So until they come with an explanation how their Gods were wrong the 1st time he/she/it came up with the holy texts... Jesus recognise the Old Testament, so does Islam. The difference between Shia and Sunni is mainly due to a different opinion about who was the heir of Mohammed, not the core of the text.
    Yet religions ARE subject to modification, which is what I was trying to show.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "So whatever communists at power did, you can't ban the ideology they steered by?" Yes, because there are different streams in communism as you know.
    Don't you think that banning only SOME stream of communism and ALL religions indiscriminately (despite both can be blamed in many unsavory things) is somehow unfair?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    Putting in the same bags the Communist executed by Stalin with Stalin is ridiculous.
    I don't think so. Stalin executed his colleagues not because of some ideological issues, it was a usual internal strife to get the domination in the party and in the country. Or to you mind we can't put in the same nazi bag Hitler and those he assassinated in the Night of the long knives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    "But whatever reasons for banning religion(s) you may forward, what about the people who will persist in worshipping them? What will you do with them? Proclaim them outlaws? Persecute them?" Didn't say it was possible. I just said in order to avoid a good reason for war would be the vanishing of religions. They will hopefully disappeared, but it will under the flamethrower of knowledge and reason, Inch'allah...
    What you say now is somehow different from banning, the word you used at first. So I don't know what in fact do you stand for - official banning or natural disappearence.



    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    PVP, what you failed to understand is I don't care of what Gospel or Holy Books are saying. What I care is what people are doing with it.
    This is what I've been saying all the time. Some people might do nasty things having nothing to do with religions (like Breivik, for instance), others do very good things because they have read the Holy books. The latter are something like a huge shop containing EVERYTHING. What you buy in it - bread for the needy or a gun to shoot your neighbor - depends on YOU, not on the SHOP.

  18. #78
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,422

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    All society groups are artificial constructs, including the family (if we speak of two (or more) people that share houshold, bed, finances, etc. If we speak of family as of parents and children, then they are biological group).
    Yes, and that's why one should not treat ethnicity as an unchangeable fact of life. Especially when it gets in the way of greatness.
    And two people who are a couple usually have more biological/chemical links that are part of their nature and bind them together than I do with some random guy from Saxony that I never even met.

    The point being that one should not raise ethnicity as a seemingly immovable object or natural fact that prevents immigration from being successful, because that makes it seem like something it just is not. We need to move on from a post-factual world to a post-ethnical one.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  19. #79
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,058

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    We need to move on from a post-factual world to a post-ethnical one.
    That's where Europe (and Germany especially) seems to be moving, and that's what seems to be ruining it. Europeans seems to lose an anchor, a glue that holds their societies together.

  20. #80
    Hǫr­ar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    Where is the mass immigration and the huge ethnic difference?
    Dagestan is a very diverse place; and the immigration into Europe tends to be quite diverse, often creating quite diverse places where they settle.

    What about black-skinned people who grew up here and have our culture?
    Do they need cosmetic surgery to get our ethnicity? Bleach their skin?
    They are part of the culture, but they aren't necessarily part of the ethnic group; certainly not in the strictest sense (in which there is presently nothing realistic that they can do to change it). This goes beyond skin colour, of course, which is just one component of an ethnic phenotype.

    So we can just continue immigration if we just stop making a big deal out of it?
    It's a big deal for many because it is causing a lot of problems.

    The inter-ethnic hatred is not an unchangeable fact after all and we have the choice to just stop it.
    Yay!
    Yes, like criminals have to choose to be criminal. Currently, it's a statistical certainty that many will make the that choice, anyway; so you prepare for crime because you know you'll get it.

    Mixed-ethnic marriages for example.
    You'd need quite a lot of mixed marriages before it would have any relevance for a UK parliament dominated by MPs living in India.

    They don't seem to inevitably murder eachother whereas you seem to say that this were the case when you mix ethnicities on a national level.
    Interactions between individuals is not the same as the statistics of interaction between groups of individuals. For the current topic, it's not particularly relevant that some individuals from different groups form close bonds, or that some individuals from certain groups become 'successful'; but what the statistics for the group is as a whole, over time.

    My point is that you can mix them as long as the people on both sides do not make a big deal about it, which is a decision on the part of those people, a matter of education, upbringing or whatever (we hardly discuss that part here it seems).

    [...]

    Immigrants are treated the wrong way, are not introduced to and held to our basic standards and neither was much being done about the hostility they received early on from the side of the natives. There was lots of ghettoization and group-building around ethnic lines, that just exaggerates the differences. That is why I say the problem are not the ethnicities but how people handle them. Surely the "ethnic" hardliners who do not want to talk should be sent back home, I applaud e.g. the decision of the European court not to allow Muslims to remove their girls from swimming lectures just because they want everything to be more like home where girls and boys are seperated. People who come here should be willing to accept the basic tenets of our culture.
    I disagree with the underlying view. Unless we are willing to spend massive amounts of both money and time on integration, I think we will just see the same issues repeated and made worse with recent/current immigration levels. The way I see it, the immigrants cluster together because they either have more in common with each other than the majority population, or because they settle in the parts of cities that are the cheapest - or both. This causes segregation and maintains the status of immigrants and their descendants as out-group, and rates of antisocial behaviour go up in such areas.


    Then I'm sure the assimilation of the areas conquered by Russia will be swift as well, they only assimilate neighbors after all.
    Neighbours quite distinct from themselves. The Caucasus is quite unique with its endemic language families; and is also culturally distinct (including, of course, the presence of Islam in several of these republics). Other republics contain Buddhist Mongols (Kalmykia) and Turkic people (like the Muslim Tatars in Tatarstan). So no, they got much work to do if the want to assimilate; and it might seem things are going in the opposite direction here and there (maybe everywhere).
    Last edited by Viking; 01-12-2017 at 14:15.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  21. #81
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,422

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Dagestan is a very diverse place; and the immigration into Europe tends to be quite diverse, often creating quite diverse places where they settle.
    And they flee from very diverse places in the first place, which makes the problem rather inescapable...

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    They are part of the culture, but they aren't necessarily part of the ethnic group; certainly not in the strictest sense (in which there is presently nothing realistic that they can do to change it). This goes beyond skin colour, of course, which is just one component of an ethnic phenotype.
    So do they have no ethnic group, are they "problems we can't deal with", should they make their own ethnic group and be provided a breeding ground to call their own nation? And how much trouble do they cause anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    It's a big deal for many because it is causing a lot of problems.

    Yes, like criminals have to choose to be criminal. Currently, it's a statistical certainty that many will make the that choice, anyway; so you prepare for crime because you know you'll get it.

    Interactions between individuals is not the same as the statistics of interaction between groups of individuals. For the current topic, it's not particularly relevant that some individuals from different groups form close bonds, or that some individuals from certain groups become 'successful'; but what the statistics for the group is as a whole, over time.
    And it's causing a lot of problems because it's a big deal for many. Hen or egg?
    I usually don't feel the need to cause trouble because I'm surrounded by different ethnicities. Can't speak for everyone of course...

    Statistically, the ethnic groups also commit the most murders within their own ethnic group, which begs the question why other groups are so concerned. The theft and other property crimes simply occur more and more the bigger the divide between rich and poor. The rich tend to steal legally and the poor with more physical/violent methods, where ethnicity enters the question is something you'd have to explain. Apart from the obvious idea where one ethnicity dominates another, which is once again an artificially created divide that is usually created along different lines in more homogeneous societies as well, and causes the same issues there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    I disagree with the underlying view. Unless we are willing to spend massive amounts of both money and time on integration, I think we will just see the same issues repeated and made worse with recent/current immigration levels. The way I see it, the immigrants cluster together because they either have more in common with each other than the majority population, or because they settle in the parts of cities that are the cheapest - or both. This causes segregation and maintains the status of immigrants and their descendants as out-group, and rates of antisocial behaviour go up in such areas.
    This is partially true, as people tend to flock to "their own" even if just for reasons of lazyness. The other part is that they are clumped together upon/after entering the country and are pretty much prohibited from participating in anything that could make them get to know naticves, such as working. And when they do, the natives try to avoid them on purpose due to prejudices which are often wrong. I dare say when we began letting a lot of people come here, racism was far more common among the native population and it led to a divide that then strengthened itself over time.

    Your argument that "well, that's just the way it is and we have to adapt to it instead of changing it" is the same that certain other cultures use to make women wear full cover and not let them leave the house without male supervision...
    I prefer the Western approach of correcting the wrong behavior instead of treating it as an unchangeable truism that we have to work around somehow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Neighbours quite distinct from themselves. The Caucasus is quite unique with its endemic language families; and is also culturally distinct (including, of course, the presence of Islam in several of these republics). Other republics contain Buddhist Mongols (Kalmykia) and Turkic people (like the Muslim Tatars in Tatarstan). So no, they got much work to do if the want to assimilate; and it might seem things are going in the opposite direction here and there (maybe everywhere).
    Now I wonder how the Catholics from Italy and the Protestants from Sweden integrated so fast in the US, because they're quite distinct...
    It couldn't possibly have something to do with the difference between being forced to accept a different government due to having been conquered by force and willingly going somewhere with a different government?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  22. #82
    Hǫr­ar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    And they flee from very diverse places in the first place, which makes the problem rather inescapable...
    Many of those who migrate form the majority population in their country of origin. For those who come from very diverse places, maybe they should fix the diversity-related problems where they come from rather than creating colonies of them in Europe.

    So do they have no ethnic group, are they "problems we can't deal with", should they make their own ethnic group and be provided a breeding ground to call their own nation? And how much trouble do they cause anyway?
    They'll have to figure out themselves whether they want to do something about it or not; I don't see how this is relates the topic at hand.

    And it's causing a lot of problems because it's a big deal for many.
    I doubt that; unless, of course, you include the immigrants themselves.

    Statistically, the ethnic groups also commit the most murders within their own ethnic group, which begs the question why other groups are so concerned.
    That is a rather narrow perspective. If you could choose between one neighbourhood of your city being full of crime and none at all, you'd presumably choose the latter. Crime can spread; and, of course, if you've lived most of your life in a calm city or neighbourhood, you don't want to risk seeing crime engulf you, and 'force' you to move.

    an artificially created divide that is usually created along different lines in more homogeneous societies as well
    Like?

    I prefer the Western approach of correcting the wrong behavior instead of treating it as an unchangeable truism that we have to work around somehow.
    You have shown the desire to change it, but not the ability. I would prefer if I didn't have to bother with keys and passwords, but I do not possess the means to bring the necessary change about.


    Now I wonder how the Catholics from Italy and the Protestants from Sweden integrated so fast in the US, because they're quite distinct...
    It couldn't possibly have something to do with the difference between being forced to accept a different government due to having been conquered by force and willingly going somewhere with a different government?
    You can note the actual differences between past migration from Europe to the US and current migration to Europe. Unless I am missing something, the Catholic Italian migrants to the US did not intentionally mow down pedestrians or the like. That implies there is a difference somewhere, whatever its exact nature. It could be modernity that is the issue, it could be Islam itself, it could be certain immigrant cultures themselves that don't fit in as well here, it could be the amount of immigration relative to native population size - or a combination of many different factors. But something, whatever it is, seems different, and that makes the comparison between past immigration to the US and the current migration to Europe not seem that relevant.

    One simple solution is that the European cultures where closer and/or more compatible than you give them credit for.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  23. #83
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,613

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    PVP, what you failed to understand is I don't care of what Gospel or Holy Books are saying. What I care is what people are doing with it. You probably know that I am an atheist, so I don't believe in any deity/ies. It doesn't mean I don't have a set of beliefs, it just mean I don't believe in a Super ET creator of the world.
    I don't believe in a "Super ET" either, I think "Super ET" is an idea peddled by a certain group of Atheists (not you) who like to characterise religions as childish even when they aren't.

    Now, it IS important what a given Holy Book says if you are going to critique it. You quoted the Gospel of Matthew out of context, I explained the context, you literally laughed off my explanation, so I gave you the litteral chapter and verse.

    Yes, I know you're an Atheist, you should probably know I'm not uneducated fanatic, I've actually studied the Bible as a collection of texts. The same way I have studied Homer, or Shakespeare.

    I mostly agree with what you said about translation and as I speak several languages, I can tell you that what define a language are the words that can't be fully translated, as alien in French (the word Útranger will not give the full meaning) or the serbian word "inat" (pride which will push to take a decision against your own good).
    All translations are useful lies, essentially.

    However, my point is not a theological debate. My point was and is Holy Texts are words of God in the mainstream religions. As such, they can't be modified, but interpreted. But they still remain in the book.
    As I have already explained this is incorrect for the "mainstream". It is only correct for the lunatic fringe. Go to any Christian Doctor of Theology from any reputable university and he will tell you the same thing - the Bible was written down by men. Men decided which books were worthy of inclusion and which not. Indeed, the major Christian denominations only came up with authoritative lists around 500 years ago, after the Reformation.

    There is no "Book", the Bible is a collection of texts and different denominations have different Bibles. Now, is it true that you get lunatics who will hold of the KJV and claim it is THE word of God? Yes - but you can educate people out of it. I've seen it done, there's usually crying involved but the person tends to be better off in the long term.

    And your reading of the word "sword" is a good example. Your interpretation is perhaps valid. But when a extremist Christian just read the word and read as literal, he/she can justify any violent action by the Bible.
    No, they can't. They can try but it only takes five minutes to prove them wrong. That's important, because it means that if you engage with people and educate them rather than talking down to them, laughing at them and ridiculing them you can change their minds.

    They're doing a lot of this with returning Islamists and the Koran right now - they get them to read the whole Koran, and then they educate them about the context. It's very effective.

    So, when political platforms can be updated to meet modern standards (i.e. communist doctrine is now fully aware that dictatorship is not an option), a Holy Text can't.
    We both know it was done in the past, and this not the argument.
    You can nuance the implementation of Communist Doctrine but the reality is it's still Communism as expounded by Marx, or it isn't. You can't update the core ideas behind Communism, or it ceases to be Communism.

    It's also not true that Holy Texts can't be updated - it's been done several times. Mormonism is an update of Christianity and Islam is a fusion and re-implementation of Christian and Jewish teaching as applied in the Arabian Peninsula.

    The reason I'm not a Muslim or a Mormon is basically the same as the reason I'm not a Neocon, I happen to think these new ideas are not as good the old ideas they're trying to reinvent. I also prefer Plato and Aristotle to modern philosophers in the main.

    "Maybe try engaging with other people instead of just mocking them?" Well, I don't react very well under "threat". And it is honestly a better thing to be reported to a moderation on a website than to be reported to the Inquisition, you should agree that it is an improvement... Now, if it really hurts you, I apologise.
    I accept your apology but I would point out that I have had to refer back to both the "sword" and the 2whip" comment multiple times on these forums. One of the reasons I posts less on religion than I used to is that I have tired of responding to the same old points.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  24. #84
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,422

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Many of those who migrate form the majority population in their country of origin. For those who come from very diverse places, maybe they should fix the diversity-related problems where they come from rather than creating colonies of them in Europe.
    That they come from the majority population of their country is not an argument. Because on one hand it is not proven and on the other hand it does not invalidate their problem. Fixing the diversity-related problems is easier said than done, you're currently opposing all my attempts to do so for example. I'll have to silence and oppress you somehow if I can't convince you I guess...

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    They'll have to figure out themselves whether they want to do something about it or not; I don't see how this is relates the topic at hand.
    It relates to the topic at hand in the sense that the government has to take care of them as it does for any other citizen, so it has to find a solution for those nazis who want to beat them up, and not just watch them do that. And if that solution is to make the nazis care less about ethnic differences, the other immigration problems are closer to being fixed as well.
    And it shows that your ideal of same-ethnicity nation states is rather hard to achieve nowadays. Even with much less immigration, Germany would grow more diverse. The shrinking population would also set an incentive to grow again because population is one measure of a nation's power among competing nations...And if the native population can't be forced to grow, there's immigration again...

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    That is a rather narrow perspective. If you could choose between one neighbourhood of your city being full of crime and none at all, you'd presumably choose the latter. Crime can spread; and, of course, if you've lived most of your life in a calm city or neighbourhood, you don't want to risk seeing crime engulf you, and 'force' you to move.
    Crime = immigrants is the narrow perspective here...

    Especially when it already happens with just a few immigrants moving into the neighborhood and before they actually commit any crimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Like?
    Japan, which is apparently the only somewhat homogeneous country in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    You have shown the desire to change it, but not the ability. I would prefer if I didn't have to bother with keys and passwords, but I do not possess the means to bring the necessary change about.
    Deporting all the people you want to deport is not something we are able to do either, so I can just give that right back to you.
    I also never claimed to know a way to solve all friction between ethnicities, instead I think we're already somewhat on the way there in Western societies, we mostly need to fix some details. That's because I don't see the "problem" you seem to see given that it's not visible in the statistics here. There may be a problem in Malm÷, but I don't want to apply fixes to all of Europe just because Malm÷ has a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    You can note the actual differences between past migration from Europe to the US and current migration to Europe. Unless I am missing something, the Catholic Italian migrants to the US did not intentionally mow down pedestrians or the like. That implies there is a difference somewhere, whatever its exact nature. It could be modernity that is the issue, it could be Islam itself, it could be certain immigrant cultures themselves that don't fit in as well here, it could be the amount of immigration relative to native population size - or a combination of many different factors. But something, whatever it is, seems different, and that makes the comparison between past immigration to the US and the current migration to Europe not seem that relevant.

    One simple solution is that the European cultures where closer and/or more compatible than you give them credit for.
    And why would that be so?
    As for murders in the US, a lot of the immigrating Europeans brought the mafia or gangs with them and they murdered a whole lot of people.
    And finding out what the reasons for terrorist acts are should be something done alongside the effort to suppress them. That these people basically began to use suicide attacks on civilians in modernity may have a reason. To just say that you don't care and want them gone is the same approach that the NSDAP had towards jewish bankers. Obviously your "solution" is a lot less cruel, but the way you get there is pretty much the same, you ignore all historical context and just blame and punish people for the status quo.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  25. #85
    Hǫr­ar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    That they come from the majority population of their country is not an argument.
    They often don't come from places as diverse as Dagestan (that's why they are at all able to form a majority of the population). In many cases, granting independence to certain regions could solve a lot.

    Fixing the diversity-related problems is easier said than done, you're currently opposing all my attempts to do so for example.
    I am opposing your attempts to introduce diversity, not decrease it.

    It relates to the topic at hand in the sense that the government has to take care of them as it does for any other citizen, so it has to find a solution for those nazis who want to beat them up, and not just watch them do that. And if that solution is to make the nazis care less about ethnic differences, the other immigration problems are closer to being fixed as well.
    Many Western curriculums are full of unicorns, rainbows and tolerance already - what are you going to do? One of the countries that seems to have the most rainbows and unicorns is Sweden, and they're one of the worst off.

    the other immigration problems are closer to being fixed as well
    Not by much.

    And it shows that your ideal of same-ethnicity nation states is rather hard to achieve nowadays.
    With a stop in relevant immigration and with evidence-based assimilation drives, we might revert to pre-immigration states sooner than you think.

    Crime = immigrants is the narrow perspective here...

    Especially when it already happens with just a few immigrants moving into the neighborhood and before they actually commit any crimes.
    Think more about living your entire life in a city like Malm÷, only to see crime rates shoot up as you grow older.


    Japan, which is apparently the only somewhat homogeneous country in the world.
    And which 'artificially created divide' do we find in Japan that is some sort of equivalent to an ethnic divide?


    Deporting all the people you want to deport is not something we are able to do either, so I can just give that right back to you.
    As I stated earlier, my main focus is on halting immigration.


    There may be a problem in Malm÷, but I don't want to apply fixes to all of Europe just because Malm÷ has a problem.
    Not just Malm÷, many different places.

    And why would that be so?
    Common religious and lingual roots. The latter part might be more important than it first seems, as it may also include a recent (relatively speaking) common cultural origin.


    As for murders in the US, a lot of the immigrating Europeans brought the mafia or gangs with them and they murdered a whole lot of people.
    There's a lot of relevant crime in Europe that's in addition to terrorism (as discussed previously); and of course, the American mafia is another example of how immigration can go wrong.

    To just say that you don't care and want them gone is the same approach that the NSDAP had towards jewish bankers. Obviously your "solution" is a lot less cruel, but the way you get there is pretty much the same, you ignore all historical context and just blame and punish people for the status quo.
    In the same vague sense that the non-Western immigration to Europe has the potential to become comparable to the marginalisation of the native Americans by Europeans if it goes on for long enough.
    Last edited by Viking; 01-12-2017 at 21:39. Reason: changes
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  26. #86
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,422

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    They often don't come from places as diverse as Dagestan (that's why they are at all able to form a majority of the population). In many cases, granting independence to certain regions could solve a lot.
    That's completely untrue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Many Western curriculums are full of unicorns, rainbows and tolerance already - what are you going to do? One of the countries that seems to have the most rainbows and unicorns is Sweden, and they're one of the worst off.
    That's because unicorns count even peeing on the street as visual rape whereas countries full of bears don't even count *********** in their statistics and incentivize the police not to report it whenever possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Not by much.
    By very much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    With a stop in relevant immigration and with evidence-based assimilation drives, we might revert to pre-immigration states sooner than you think.
    With ongoing immigration and evidence-based tolerance-courses, everything can be fixed without resorting to Hitler's dream.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Think more about living your entire life in a city like Malm÷, only to see crime rates shoot up as you grow older.
    They didn't shoot up, and I would have voted for the people who made it happen repeatedly anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    And which 'artificially created divide' do we find in Japan that is some sort of equivalent to an ethnic divide?
    Rich vs. Poor, Men vs Women, Japanese vs. Criminals, Able-Bodied vs. Disabled.
    Not to forget that for being such a utopia, 57th place in the happiness ranking, way after most of the terribly diverse Euronations, is not exactly a stellar achievement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Not just Malm÷, many different places.
    Such as?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Common religious and lingual roots. The latter part might be more important than it first seems, as it may also include a recent (relatively speaking) common cultural origin.
    Languages can be learned, taught even.


    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    There's a lot of relevant crime in Europe that's in addition to terrorism (as discussed previously); and of course, the American mafia is another example of how immigration can go wrong.
    That other crime is statistically insignificant, 2 million new Germans of the same socioeconomic group instead of 2 million new immigrants would produce the same "increase". Ethnicity does not factor in there.
    And there's a mafia in Japan, too. Your argument is invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    In the same vague sense that the non-Western immigration to Europe has the potential to become comparable to the marginalisation of the native Americans by Europeans if it goes on for long enough.
    When? 2500? The comparison is completely invalid again on several levels. The native Americans were technologically inferior and killed by diseases they did not know due to their lack of contact with other ethnicities. Today we have plenty of measures to at least dampen the effect of diseases, have fewer diseases we don't know anything about and are technically, monetarily and in most other aspects superior to the refugees and immigrants. They also don't land here with armed and armored soldiers disembarking from warships in case you haven't noticed.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  27. #87
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,058

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    Japan, which is apparently the only somewhat homogeneous country in the world.
    Not the only. You may count in both Koreas, Denmark, Iceland, Mongolia, Cambodia and some others.

  28. #88
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,422

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    Not the only. You may count in both Koreas, Denmark, Iceland, Mongolia, Cambodia and some others.
    There is actually a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...iversity_level

    You may want to name Tunisia, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Greece and The Netherlands, but especially the latter is already a hellhole due to too much diversity I hear. Korea was out due to the dictatorship thing, which leaves us with Japan. Yemen has a civil war, Portugal is ruined by diversity, Italy and Greece are on the brink of diversistruction and Poland is so scared of even more diversity that it only exports people. Tunisia is another dictatorship.

    So really, the only valid example of a country that is not affected by the terrible negativity of diversity is Japan.
    And they're doing terrible, too.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  29. #89
    Hǫr­ar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    Rich vs. Poor, Men vs Women, Japanese vs. Criminals, Able-Bodied vs. Disabled.
    You find those divides in diverse countries too (though maybe without the strange capitalisation).

    Such as?
    Forgotten about the banlieus already?

    Languages can be learned, taught even.
    You cut out the important bit:

    [having common ingual roots] might be more important than it first seems, as it may also include a recent (relatively speaking) common cultural origin.
    In other words, the Indo-European cultures of Europe could in theory be sharing some abstract features that many cultures outside of Europe might not share as many of.

    That other crime is statistically insignificant, 2 million new Germans of the same socioeconomic group instead of 2 million new immigrants would produce the same "increase".
    If you are talking about recent arrivals, that is too early to tell.

    And there's a mafia in Japan, too.
    The point is that there was mafia in Italy, then the concept or organisation spread to the US with immigration from Italy.

    When? 2500? The comparison is completely invalid again on several levels. The native Americans were technologically inferior and killed by diseases they did not know due to their lack of contact with other ethnicities. Today we have plenty of measures to at least dampen the effect of diseases, have fewer diseases we don't know anything about and are technically, monetarily and in most other aspects superior to the refugees and immigrants. They also don't land here with armed and armored soldiers disembarking from warships in case you haven't noticed.
    They are about as related as your talk of NSDAP and 'Jewish bankers' is to my posts.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  30. #90
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,422

    Default Re: French Presidential Election

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    You find those divides in diverse countries too (though maybe without the strange capitalisation).
    They are more pronounced in Japan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Forgotten about the banlieus already?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    You cut out the important bit:

    In other words, the Indo-European cultures of Europe could in theory be sharing some abstract features that many cultures outside of Europe might not share as many of.
    Fantasy argument. Great!

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    If you are talking about recent arrivals, that is too early to tell.
    German police already recorded a decrease in crime among recent arrivals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    The point is that there was mafia in Italy, then the concept or organisation spread to the US with immigration from Italy.
    Yes, there are also crabs that spread around the world with trade vessels and then eat all the other crabs.
    The point was that the mafia didn't come into existence solely due to ethnic mixing as it existed within a relatively homogeneous group just as well, even began there.
    The concept of organized crime and/or gangs came up in many different ethnicities, Japan also has the Yakuza, or were they spawned by Sicilian immigrants as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    They are about as related as your talk of NSDAP and 'Jewish bankers' is to my posts.
    That you did not understand my comparison does not make yours any more valid though, unfortunately.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO