Dutch on islam

I won't blame you if you are fed up with me posting about islam and my disgust of it.

But here are some numbers, I absolutily will agree that he is a gun for hire when it comes to polls should that be your argument http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=92d_137026517 but there is no countering for the moment.

- A majority of 55 percent favors stopping immigration from Islamic countries.
- 63 percent say: no new mosques.
- 72 percent favor a constitutional ban on Sharia law in the Netherlands.
- 64 percent say that the arrival of immigrants from Islamic countries has not been beneficial to the Netherlands.
- Nearly three-quarters — 73 percent — of all Dutch see a relationship between Islam and the recent terror acts in Boston, London and Paris.

That are a lot of people who are more extreme than I am because I don't mind mosques, and I don't mind people from Islamic countries settling here.

- 64 percent say that the arrival of immigrants from Islamic countries has not been beneficial to the Netherlands. <- that

I agree with that but you already knew that, and keep in mind that most must have replied 'no opinion'

Failpad hates edit-button, it just doesn't react. Of course I meant the remaining 36% said 'no opinion'

A few bad apples spoil the bunch. Back in 1944, most people associated Germans with Nazi's. Then the Nazi's died but the Germans didn't. When the terrorists die (i.e. blow themselves up), we'll be left with normal sane Muslims. I think.

It's not necessarily just terrorism which led to the poll results, I don't think there have been any Islamic terror attacks in Holland? The failure, often due to a complete lack of effort, of a signifacant minority to integrate into Dutch society and expectation that Dutch society should change to accomodate them are more likely to be the main reasons. Certainly when I lived there, 13 or so years ago, this was the opinion of a lot of native Dutch I spoke to.

There is a reason a lot of Dutch think like this and it has nothing to do with terrorism

No, it has more to do with the failure of policy (in fact, I'd say the presence of policy) where it concerns multiculturalism.

Immigrants take at least three generations to integrate and be integrated into society.

Italians & Greeks, then Vietnamese boat people, then Turks and Lebanese.

First generation are grateful but resentful at the same time. Second tends just to be resentful and any who fall though the cracks go into crime. Third generation seems to be blended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

No, it has more to do with the failure of policy (in fact, I'd say the presence of policy) where it concerns multiculturalism.

---

We could just be in total agreement

So Fragony .... do you like muslims or not. Tell it simple. And I think there is 100% connection beetwen muslims and muslim terrorists.
100% of muslim terrorists are muslims. Without muslims there would be no muslim terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

So Fragony .... do you like muslims or not. Tell it simple. And I think there is 100% connection beetwen muslims and muslim terrorists.
100% of muslim terrorists are muslims. Without muslims there would be no muslim terrorists.

---

100% of muslim terrorists muslim, tell me it isn't so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

A few bad apples spoil the bunch. Back in 1944, most people associated Germans with Nazi's. Then the Nazi's died but the Germans didn't. When the terrorists die (i.e. blow themselves up), we'll be left with normal sane Muslims. I think.

---

Well no. There is not a finite amount of terrorists out there. By all means if the Dutch want to be that restrictive, they are more than welcome to do it. Japan hates foreigners, allows no immigratioin and no one gets on their case about it. It's this bastard child of the whites man burden that guilt trips Europe into thinking they owe these people anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Well no. There is not a finite amount of terrorists out there. By all means if the Dutch want to be that restrictive, they are more than welcome to do it. Japan hates foreigners, allows no immigratioin and no one gets on their case about it. It's this bastard child of the whites man burden that guilt trips Europe into thinking they owe these people anything.

---

Holy crap on a stick with icecream! I don't believe this! OH THE SHAME!!
I...actually...agree...with...........the troll! I think I will walk about behind my house and blow my brains out now.

You are either a christian country or not. If the latter, then people with different religions should be welcomed.

The price of free speech etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarakas

You are either a christian country or not. If the latter, then people with different religions should be welcomed.

The price of free speech etc.

---

There is a big difference between civil rights and an open borders immigration policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Well no. There is not a finite amount of terrorists out there. By all means if the Dutch want to be that restrictive, they are more than welcome to do it. Japan hates foreigners, allows no immigratioin and no one gets on their case about it. It's this bastard child of the whites man burden that guilt trips Europe into thinking they owe these people anything.

---

Japan can get away with it, since they're rejecting everybody. If the Dutch stops the immigration of Muslims, then there obviously will be a backlash from the existing Dutch Muslims and the Muslims abroad. It's the fact that they're stopping a certain group of people, not people in general i.e. Japan.

If they pass a bill to stop Muslims entering the country, I'm pretty sure the terrorists will hear about it. This will only paint a target on the Netherlands. I'm surprised there hasn't been any major terrorist activities in France, after the hijab ban. It's only a matter of time. You can't talk sense into a deluded idiotic fanatic.

People should be able to live where ever the **** they want. Just don't be a dick, and we'll be fine. Unfortunately, many people are dicks, so it is not fine. *sigh*

Extremism is as welcome as the inquisition for most Dutch muslims, it's just that multiculturalists insists to fascilitate it and call it diversity or tolerance. De facto there is no problem with muslims in the Netherlands really

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

Unfortunately, many people are dicks, so it is not fine. *sigh*

---

Yeah, about 50% of the population are dicks. And almost 100% of terrorists have them too.

So should we ban all male immigration?

In Poland we have no problem with muslims at the moment. Maybe because there is not many of them. However I'm for restrictions for muslims.
They have to respect polish culture and laws. Otherwise short and simple word will be used for them - "W O N".

I would rather just have them learn the language before they enter our wonderful country so they show some dedication before stealing our riches and women! Abandoning their faith, which preaches violence against anyone not of their faith: us, is a plus ,of course.

theyre all brainwashed by their ideology right? lets just close all borders, call all soldiers home, close down all foreign based companies and enjoy a nice dutch summer, where autumn starts when winter ends.

Question: Has there been examples in history where muslim immigration over time changed the culture and laws etc of a individual country? In other words, the country is now muslim.

If the answer is yes, then, maybe history is repeating itself.

If the answer is no, then the Netherlands and others with muslim immigration need not worry.

Albania? Bosnia & Hercegowina maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Albania? Bosnia & Hercegowina maybe?

---

Even if you didn't lose a person taking over those countries would be a Pyrrhic victory.

Then again, those were conquered by military force. The comparison doesn't really work in this case.

indonesia, many countries in africa. Never conquered by a military force yet the muslims are now a dominant political factor.

however, this is nothing unique to islam/muslim culture or whatever. Christianity did the same thing in the Roman Empire, and "dark age" europe. Wether it is unique to the religions of the book? It might be, im not sure, i'd have to check into it some more. A possible comparison might be communism, even though most of them became politically dominant by revolution, it is not really a foreign conquerer. The ideology behind the french and american revolution would also count then. Nazism and facism maybe, although it wasnt long lasting.

Famous Gadafi quote;

"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

Is there some truth in this? Was Gadafi a wise man or a fool? (or both)

Is there a similarity with Spanish Islamic history. The spread of Islam from Cordoba to most of Spain, until it was expelled by war.

The South of Spain was conquered in military campaign, can't really be compared

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarakas

Famous Gadafi quote;

"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

Is there some truth in this? Was Gadafi a wise man or a fool? (or both)

Is there a similarity with Spanish Islamic history. The spread of Islam from Cordoba to most of Spain, until it was expelled by war.

---

The spread of Islam by war, remember.

I think it's unlikely Islam will become dominant in Europe - we are seeing a rise in "spirituality" now that the post-WWII generation's children are grown up. In the post-war era a lack of belief, at least strong belief, was considered a moral good in and of itself - secularism was one of the initial goals of the pan-European project - Catholic - Protestant - Jew. After all - beliefs of one kind or another had fueled the Nazi's.

However, that time has passed - the old institutions persist but they are no longer driving social forces. Despite this, if people in Europe want solace, they'll go to a Church (unless they're Jewish), or they'll opt for something safely exotic that they can't understand - like Buddhism. I'm not saying Buddhism is incoherent - but "being a Buddhist" is a thing for the yuppy, a way of being "spiritual" without being seen as a religious whacko.

Islam, by contrast, is a very threatening religion - it's the religion of the people who destroyed the Roman Empire, conquered North Africa and completely re-drew the cultural map. It has a deity very like Almighty God, but just a little too different - no more Christmas and no more booze. I don't see it swamping secular Europe.

After all - it was briefly in vogue in the latter 19th Century, it really didn't take off then either.

by roman empire i take it you mean the byzantines?

I thought we had ready established Rome fell from within and out to Christians.

Also a civilisation who's economy relies on conquering to prosper deserves to be conquered. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

by roman empire i take it you mean the byzantines?

---

You could call the byzantines the Roman-empire without being wrong. Different period than the historically accepted Islamic expansion though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You could call the byzantines the Roman-empire without being wrong. Different period than the historically accepted Islamic expansion though

---

i know you can, but its still unneccesary confusing :P

Quote:

---

Islam, by contrast, is a very threatening religion - it's the religion of the people who destroyed the Roman Empire, conquered North Africa and completely re-drew the cultural map.

---

The notion of the "Arab Muslim horde" sweeping through the old remnants of the Roman Empire and completely destroying it has been discarded and thrown into the rubbish bin. There's no archaeological evidence anywhere to support a conquest of that type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

The notion of the "Arab Muslim horde" sweeping through the old remnants of the Roman Empire and completely destroying it has been discarded and thrown into the rubbish bin. There's no archaeological evidence anywhere to support a conquest of that type.

---

It simply never happened. Maybe someone is confused with the fall of Constantinobel in 1453

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

Here is usefull map, the western part of the Roman empire was never conquered

Muslims were in Dutchonia first. The Dutch just need to GTFO and go back to where they belong, and take their stupid Dutch cats with them.

Spain... Which at one point ruled the Dutch.

LOL...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

The notion of the "Arab Muslim horde" sweeping through the old remnants of the Roman Empire and completely destroying it has been discarded and thrown into the rubbish bin. There's no archaeological evidence anywhere to support a conquest of that type.

---

It was the Turkish Muslim horde and I think there is a lot of evidence. I even saw Turkish guys wearing t-shirts featuring the event so not even they are denying it.

Yes, the Eastern Roman Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire, I don't see how that is confusing. In fact I always read about how they called themselves Romans and thought of themselves as Romans.
Even Wikipedia knows this:

Quote:

---

The Byzantine Empire was known to its inhabitants as the "Roman Empire", the "Empire of the Romans" (Latin: Imperium Romanum, Imperium Romanorum; Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn, Ἀρχὴ τῶν Ῥωμαίων Archē tōn Rhōmaiōn), "Romania" (Latin: Romania; Greek: Ῥωμανία Rhōmania),[n 2] the "Roman Republic" (Latin: Res Publica Romana; Greek: Πολιτεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων Politeia tōn Rhōmaiōn), Graikia (Greek: Γραικία), and also as Rhōmais (Greek: Ῥωμαΐς).[11]

---

they hardly completely destroyed anything. I know they styled themselves to be the Roman Empire, but in history many nations have done so. I asked because in the way he was talking about the Roman Empire it wasnt entirely clear whether he meant the Byzantines/Eastern Roman Empire or if he just have a conception of what happened in North Africa I havent heard of.

As for Islam being threathening because of some military conquests... It pales in comparison by what "christians" have conquered or pagans for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, the Eastern Roman Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire, I don't see how that is confusing. In fact I always read about how they called themselves Romans and thought of themselves as Romans.
Even Wikipedia knows this:

---

True, but the massive cultural shift between the old Romans and the Byzantines does make it easier to speak about two different entities with a shared development. Otherwise you could call Greece a Roman legacy since they saw Constantinopel as their obvious capital during their independence war. The Byzantine empire did end up as a Greek empire quite quickly.

Of course, you also have the 3 self-proclaimed followers of the new roman empire. The Holy Roman Empire, tsarist (ceasarist) Russia and of course the Ottomans themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Spain... Which at one point ruled the Dutch.

---

Well only for a while, they were pretty mean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well only for a while, they were pretty mean

---

Yes, nice guys do finish first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

they hardly completely destroyed anything.

---

Who? The Byzantines? Noone said so. The Turkish Muslim hordes as Hax would call them did at least destroy the walls and the Eastern Roman Empire as whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

I know they styled themselves to be the Roman Empire, but in history many nations have done so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Of course, you also have the 3 self-proclaimed followers of the new roman empire. The Holy Roman Empire, tsarist (ceasarist) Russia and of course the Ottomans themselves.

---

I'm not even a history buff but those claims are rather different given that the Byzantine Empire was directly created as the Eastern Roman Empire when the formerly united Roman Empire split into two parts to become more governable. None of the other claims came from a "direct inheritance", they were all made up. The Eastern Roman Empire was simply the eastern part of the Roman Empire, how does that compare to some Tsar in Russia claiming to be a Roman Emperor when he doesn't even live anywhere near an area that was ever part of the actual Roman Empire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Yes, nice guys do finish first.

---

Took a while, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years'_War

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Who? The Byzantines? Noone said so. The Turkish Muslim hordes as Hax would call them did at least destroy the walls and the Eastern Roman Empire as whole.



I'm not even a history buff but those claims are rather different given that the Byzantine Empire was directly created as the Eastern Roman Empire when the formerly united Roman Empire split into two parts to become more governable. None of the other claims came from a "direct inheritance", they were all made up. The Eastern Roman Empire was simply the eastern part of the Roman Empire, how does that compare to some Tsar in Russia claiming to be a Roman Emperor when he doesn't even live anywhere near an area that was ever part of the actual Roman Empire?

---

Im sorry, i meant ofcourse the "Muslim Hordes...", destroying walls can hardly be seen as something unique and threathening about muslims right? :P So the Byzantines/Romans got conquered, so what? They conquered others before, as Pape said, live by the sword, die by the sword, it is a lesson the West (particularly America) shouldnt forgot.

Anyway again, unneccesary confusion, it is true that the people we call the Byzantines (from our historic perspective) actually called themself the Roman Empire, but Indians/Native Americans have also thought of themselves by different names, but since when has that ever stopped us? It is just a pragmatic approach to split them up since the Roman Empire (including the republic) has a timespan of about 2000 years...

Also they claim to be the heirs to the Legacy of Rome, the Tsars probably claimed it in the light of being heirs to Eastern Roman Empire and its religion (orthodox christinaity), after it fell by the hands of the murderous and barbarian muslim hordes of turks.

anyway back to the issue at hand, i think Hax has it right, i never heard that there was any more desctruction than normal in that time when a country was conquered by a foreign military. as for allowing other religions, in those times i thought the muslims were more tolerant, or atleast pragmatic, in their approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

They conquered others before, as Pape said, live by the sword, die by the sword, it is a lesson the West (particularly America) shouldnt forgot.

---

The Muslims lived by the sword and now they are still here. Why is this an exception for them then?

Considering most of the Islamic violence is between different sects one only has to look at the Middle East to figure out how successful nations are that have so much violence.

Likewise how well did the Protestant vs Catholic violence help Ireland and NIs economies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickinator9

The Muslims lived by the sword and now they are still here. Why is this an exception for them then?

---

it is not

Quote:

---

anyway back to the issue at hand, i think Hax has it right, i never heard that there was any more desctruction than normal in that time when a country was conquered by a foreign military. as for allowing other religions, in those times i thought the muslims were more tolerant, or atleast pragmatic, in their approach.

---

It's even better than that: there's no archaeological evidence for massive burning and looting at all. It's more like a rather smooth transition to power that went unnoticed by most people, or that's what we think nowadays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I'm not even a history buff but those claims are rather different given that the Byzantine Empire was directly created as the Eastern Roman Empire when the formerly united Roman Empire split into two parts to become more governable. None of the other claims came from a "direct inheritance", they were all made up. The Eastern Roman Empire was simply the eastern part of the Roman Empire, how does that compare to some Tsar in Russia claiming to be a Roman Emperor when he doesn't even live anywhere near an area that was ever part of the actual Roman Empire?

---

Yes, the ERE did evolve into the Byzantines rather than following a claim or change due to a conquest. So it does have a stronger claim. But for us living much later, it's easier a better to have different terms, since they still had big changes: A different religion, a different main language and aren't owning any or thier own original territory (that they still name themselves after). That's a pretty big shift.

About that Tsar, it's a church thing. The Patriarch in Constantinopel (was something like the orthodox pope) granted the title Tsar (it's basically emperor) to the Bulgarians earlier and after the fall of Constantinopel, the a few dacades later independent Russia (from the golden horde) did claim to be the new center of ortodox faith (it was more or less) and aimed to create the third Rome. The Patriarch of Constantinopel did remain though, he's still around today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Who? The Byzantines? Noone said so. The Turkish Muslim hordes as Hax would call them did at least destroy the walls and the Eastern Roman Empire as whole.



I'm not even a history buff but those claims are rather different given that the Byzantine Empire was directly created as the Eastern Roman Empire when the formerly united Roman Empire split into two parts to become more governable. None of the other claims came from a "direct inheritance", they were all made up. The Eastern Roman Empire was simply the eastern part of the Roman Empire, how does that compare to some Tsar in Russia claiming to be a Roman Emperor when he doesn't even live anywhere near an area that was ever part of the actual Roman Empire?

---

4 parts if I remeber correctly, tetrarchy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

4 parts if I remeber correctly, tetrarchy

---

That is correct, but there was an Augustus (Senior) and a Caesar (Lesser partner appointed to the Augustus), but they shared similar power. So it was split between West and East, then those territories were split. It came to an end by Constantine. Due to the bouts, civil wars and the later WestEast-Split, the Tetrarchy period is usually overlooked when speaking generally as Husar is doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

by roman empire i take it you mean the byzantines?

---

Bit of a grey area in the "Dark Ages" - up until the 11th Century you can legitimately call it the "Roman" Empire - It was the Eastern Empire which lost North Africa to the Muslim Arabs, not the Germanic Barbarians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I thought we had ready established Rome fell from within and out to Christians.

Also a civilisation who's economy relies on conquering to prosper deserves to be conquered. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

---

Um - no Rome fell to internal decay and a lack of a machinery to manage a large Empire effectively, Edward Gibbon's thesis that the Christians were to blame is down to his attempts to excuse the Muslims (with Gibbons, also originates the attribution of the Alexandria-burning to Christians in the 4th Century).

The adoption of an apocalyptic-salvation religion is a symptom of the decline, not a cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

The notion of the "Arab Muslim horde" sweeping through the old remnants of the Roman Empire and completely destroying it has been discarded and thrown into the rubbish bin. There's no archaeological evidence anywhere to support a conquest of that type.

---

In France, Spain, Italy - they speak Latin, they are nominally Roman Christians. In North Africa - they speak Arabic, they are nominally Muslims.

I'm not talking about physical destruction, physical genocide, I'm talking about a massive cultural shift, where the previously similar people in Carthage and Rome have become cultural divorced. That is the destruction of the Roman Empire, not episodes of mass-burnings.

I'm also talking here about cultural memory, not historical wars. Ask a Spaniard about the Reconquesta, or a Greek about Hagia Sophia.

i still dont really see how this is unique to muslims or islam inspired conquest :S or wasnt that your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

That is correct, but there was an Augustus (Senior) and a Caesar (Lesser partner appointed to the Augustus), but they shared similar power. So it was split between West and East, then those territories were split. It came to an end by Constantine. Due to the bouts, civil wars and the later WestEast-Split, the Tetrarchy period is usually overlooked when speaking generally as Husar is doing.

---

Look at this

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&si...ZpX4Qpxsv8M%3A

All drawing their swords or ready to, except one I don't know why.

Quote:

---

In France, Spain, Italy - they speak Latin, they are nominally Roman Christians. In North Africa - they speak Arabic, they are nominally Muslims.

I'm not talking about physical destruction, physical genocide, I'm talking about a massive cultural shift, where the previously similar people in Carthage and Rome have become cultural divorced. That is the destruction of the Roman Empire, not episodes of mass-burnings.

I'm also talking here about cultural memory, not historical wars. Ask a Spaniard about the Reconquesta, or a Greek about Hagia Sophia.

---

I speak English near-fluently. Doesn't make me an Anglican.

Yes, a massive cultural shift did occur, but it took centuries upon centuries. Also I don't buy into this whole "cultural memory" concept, which sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

i still dont really see how this is unique to muslims or islam inspired conquest :S or wasnt that your point?

---

It wasn't my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I speak English near-fluently. Doesn't make me an Anglican.

Yes, a massive cultural shift did occur, but it took centuries upon centuries. Also I don't buy into this whole "cultural memory" concept, which sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

---

You don't buy into a cultural memory?

Consider our thread on Scotland - despite recent historical fact (Stuarts etc) what is remembered in Bannockburn, and the tyranny of Longshanks.

In England - out great national Heroes are men like King Arthur (defended Christians against pagan Saxon horde), Richard the Lionheart (Defended Christians against the Muslim Horde) and Henry V (Defended English against the perfidious French).

More recently, you have the Sepoy Rebellion in India, where the Hindus and Muslims rebelled because they believed the British were greasing the new cartridges with pig and cow fat (the cartridges were waxed, or greased with Pig fat) - which hasn't helped.

Look at the Irish - hell look at the Basques and Catelonians!

People remember the past as a part of their identity

Seriously Hax, did you get nothing like this as a child?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

People are indocrinated on certain limited/key aspects of the past as a part of their manufactured identity.

---

Corrected!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Consider our thread on Scotland - despite recent historical fact (Stuarts etc) what is remembered in Bannockburn, and the tyranny of Longshanks.

---

I blame Mel Gibson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Corrected!

---

To paraphrase a former Archbishop of Canterbury - you only believe that because you've been indoctrinated to believe that.

Identity is not "manufactured" in a vacuum, it is constructed by a living society.

Just as the individual chooses what to forget and what to remember when constructing their identity - likewise the society of which they are a part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Identity is not "manufactured" in a vacuum, it is constructed by a living society.

Just as the individual chooses what to forget and what to remember when constructing their identity - likewise the society of which they are a part.

---

Correct, but that is exactly what I am meaning.

From what it appears from your view, Society implies some sort of super-authority for being correct, however society is very much influenced by the media and the resources around us and if anything, the minority.

Using your own example, people tend to forget about how it is Scotland which wanted the union with England and how it was a Scottish King upon joint thrones, it simply does not fit the political agenda of those such as the SNP or those with grievances against Westminster, who overplay the time of Edward Longshanks and a certain Mel Gibson movie. It is the efforts of the vocal minority which pushes these concepts upon a far more passive-majority.

So whilst you are suggesting there is a somewhat overarching majority which stifles those of the minority, it is the opposite, it is the minority which stifles those of the majority and shifts its position.

Though to counter your friend, this is not an opinion based or rooted by indoctrination,. This is a more an objective view with in light with the psychological process works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Correct, but that is exactly what I am meaning.

From what it appears from your view, Society implies some sort of super-authority for being correct, however society is very much influenced by the media and the resources around us and if anything, the minority.

Using your own example, people tend to forget about how it is Scotland which wanted the union with England and how it was a Scottish King upon joint thrones, it simply does not fit the political agenda of those such as the SNP or those with grievances against Westminster, who overplay the time of Edward Longshanks and a certain Mel Gibson movie. It is the efforts of the vocal minority which pushes these concepts upon a far more passive-majority.

So whilst you are suggesting there is a somewhat overarching majority which stifles those of the minority, it is the opposite, it is the minority which stifles those of the majority and shifts its position.

Though to counter your friend, this is not an opinion based or rooted by indoctrination,. This is a more an objective view with in light with the psychological process works.

---

you are as much indoctrinated, you just dont realize it. ofcourse, if you would, you wouldnt have been properly indoctrinated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Though to counter your friend, this is not an opinion based or rooted by indoctrination,. This is a more an objective view with in light with the psychological process works.

---

It was William Temple - and there is no such thing as an "objective" view. You're a mod, not a God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

there is no such thing as an "objective" view.

---

I think that is an opinion, not a fact. :smoking:

So, speaking philosophically,
The objective viewpoint
Can and cannot be?

(to butcher a Python line which is much more clever:p)

Response: "Yes, I agree" "No, I disagree", "I haven't decided yet", "You either agree, disagree or not currently not made up your mind on this issue".

The last one is the objective point, where it is more illustrating about the responses and facts, not simply an opinion on an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I think that is an opinion, not a fact. :smoking:

---

facts never have truth value, they are assigned such value after interpretation. it is not a matter of fact, but neither is it an opinion. it is pretty much the fundamental cornerstone of your perception on which you base all your other opinions (even though chronologically you probably had opinions before you had knowledge of this cornerstone, which may be odd, or may not be if it was just implicit all along before you realised it).

and quite frankly debate is almost always going to be fruitless if you both debate from the different viewpoint of a certain foundational proposition and are not willing or capable (if it is even really possible) to go beyond it, or actually to go back, behind it.

Don't be too serious. The objective point of view is based on facts.

Therefore if one objects to the objective point of view (pun well intended) one is left with what? Opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I think that is an opinion, not a fact. :smoking:

---

That would be true - which in no way devalues my point. Basically, we don't know anything. You could cling to a false concept of objectivity, or you could accept that and view it as a call to tolerance and an open mind.

I don't think we absolutely know anything.

I do think some of our assumptions have more data points then others, so some things we can be more certain of.

We can use hindsight to generate a probable foresight.

Of course this assumes our senses and the way our brain makes sense of them reflect the world around us with some accuracy and it isn't all an illusion.

I'm also very certain that those who say there is no reality nor no probable objective truth can be caught out by their own actions over something as mundane as a cup of coffee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

We can use hindsight to generate a probable foresight.

---

that would be induction which has been sufficiently been problematized (actually just downright been proven to be irrational), by goodmans paradox, to be treated/used with caution. atleast in theory, ofcourse its quite pragmatic and i guess thats why its still widely used.

I will take an entrenched position and use science with a probalistic model which predicts a law like model with the chance of error included.

I do not think ;) Goodman's paradox negates scientific induction, it merely outlines that not all data sets lend themselves to induction ie All swans are white.

touche? :p

(what method of justification would you use then for that probabilistic model? That of Bayes?)

Using deduction you might find a better fit then I.

I see scientists a bit like F1 drivers. Sure they can fang their cars around an ideal track but you can't really take them off road nor expect them to be experts about what is under the hood. Having said the we are dealing with models so it is closer to toy cars that we are testing.

Philosophers deal with defining the car engines and the universe is much larger then the models that science uses.

Science that I'm used to starts with a position that any theory can be proved wrong. That models are predictive but not absolute. That whilst we use data sets to predict the future here is inherent limits based on using statistical analysis. The most obvious being to make 100% predictions would require all data points to be known ie you'd need every data point which includes now, past and present to get a 100% prediction. But if you have every data point you don't need a model you have the entire set.

So any system that assumes the scientific model is an absolute is missing one of the key points of science. Science is about making predictive models which by definition are neither absolute nor the entire thing. Maybe if we could slide around time like we can with space we would use a different method or at least one which we can test easier by jumping to future events.

I operate under the assumption that until proven wrong model works. That the current models can be proven wrong. That they can be tested and that they can be replaced. That IFF we knew everything there would be no place for science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Using deduction you might find a better fit then I.

I see scientists a bit like F1 drivers. Sure they can fang their cars around an ideal track but you can't really take them off road nor expect them to be experts about what is under the hood. Having said the we are dealing with models so it is closer to toy cars that we are testing.

Philosophers deal with defining the car engines and the universe is much larger then the models that science uses.

Science that I'm used to starts with a position that any theory can be proved wrong. That models are predictive but not absolute. That whilst we use data sets to predict the future here is inherent limits based on using statistical analysis. The most obvious being to make 100% predictions would require all data points to be known ie you'd need every data point which includes now, past and present to get a 100% prediction. But if you have every data point you don't need a model you have the entire set.

So any system that assumes the scientific model is an absolute is missing one of the key points of science. Science is about making predictive models which by definition are neither absolute nor the entire thing. Maybe if we could slide around time like we can with space we would use a different method or at least one which we can test easier by jumping to future events.

I operate under the assumption that until proven wrong model works. That the current models can be proven wrong. That they can be tested and that they can be replaced. That IFF we knew everything there would be no place for science.

---

Is phsycology a science?

In my opinion, humanity's history and humanity's future will be determined by the nature and outcomes of human phsycology.

Hence, i believe history repeats itself. The only difference being the technology of the day.

Humans history and future is tied to our psychology which is tied to our nature and our environment. We change our environment with our technology. We are also embarking on changing our nature with pharma and DNA technology.

Problem is no matter how good our psychology understanding it is only a small blip of time and entities in the universe. So whilst it will give some measure of our inner 'verse it won't help define post-humans or if they exist aliens very well.

Psychology as a science has less data points and it is considered unethical to gather more in a lot of instances ie purposely separate twins at birth and raise them in distinctly different environments across multiple sets. So it operates with one hand tied behind its back. No one thinks of the trauma to molecules if we separate them post manufacture.

i couldnt read all the posts but,
i dont think immigration from islamic countries must be banned, because most are not extreme or most are from like my country Kurdistan that dont bring their ISLAM into europe! because they want to only live in free!
i think its better to not to let muslims have their disgusting and insulting hejab in europe or letting new mosques and any islamic law like killing or stoning women for only have not Hejab or touching a man!