Europe submits voluntarily

[TSwizzle]

No surprise when one is constantly bombarded with hand wringing opinions about how "Western ideals and way of life" are shit.

I don't understand what you are referring to.

Well try this, state openly that "Western ideals and way of life are superior" to that of islam. See how quickly, you are tagged as "islamophobic", prejudiced or *gasp* RACIST !!! Try reading the Guardian sometime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It should be noted that, after decades of significant presence of Muslims in Europe, no Muslim political parties have yet emerged anywhere. If they are trying to take over as a body of people unified by their religion, they are not showing any signs of doing so through what would be the easiest and most straightforward way available: enter the political arena, establish political parties with programs based on Islamic teachings, and gather enough votes to enter local and national parliaments.

Why should they make a political party? They aren't going to get their will through the ballot box.

 

[faded_Glory]

It should be noted that, after decades of significant presence of Muslims in Europe, no Muslim political parties have yet emerged anywhere. If they are trying to take over as a body of people unified by their religion, they are not showing any signs of doing so through what would be the easiest and most straightforward way available: enter the political arena, establish political parties with programs based on Islamic teachings, and gather enough votes to enter local and national parliaments.

Why should they make a political party? They aren't going to get their will through the ballot box.

I don't know about Nevada, but in the UK it is precisely through the ballot box that people get their will.

 

[faded_Glory]

I don't understand what you are referring to.

Well try this, state openly that "Western ideals and way of life are superior" to that of islam. See how quickly, you are tagged as "islamophobic", prejudiced or *gasp* RACIST !!! Try reading the Guardian sometime.

As a matter of fact I read the Guardian almost daily, and follow the comment sections - up to a point. That being the point where I get depressed by the amount of misinformed, generalising, hateful bile that is spouted there when it comes to Muslims in general. Western values like tolerance, diversity, freedom of belief and so on are often hard to find there. There are extremists on all sides, you know.

 

[bilby]

In your case, the problem is your inexcusable ignorance and apparent ability to approach the subject rationally.


Muhammad carked it 1384 years ago. In the 1384 years since he died, the world, including the Islamic world, has changed drastically. Making predictions about Muslims today, based on the behaviour of a tyrant who died 1384 years ago, is just complete and utter unmitigated idiocy.

The one big lie is that islam can be compatible with Western culture. It is not and never will be.

If you don't know anything about history, your predictions of the future are worthless.

Whenever a sizeable minority of muslims congregate in Western society, they make more and more demands, like using their own sharia laws for example.

'They' don't demand Sharia law. This is what I mean by a lack of rationality; you take the actions of a tiny minority and generalise about an entire group.

And you are blinded by idealistic ideology. Meanwhile, every day a new islamic terrorist attack kills dozens and injures hundreds.

Out of hundreds of millions. Terrorism is about as dangerous as lightning.

A person who spent hours posting on discussion boards about the dangers of lightning would rightly be considered to have an insane obsession with a minor threat.

Here is something I posted on another thread that is also relevant here:

View attachment 6171

Source.

Terrorism in Europe can only be said to be getting 'worse' if you mean the terrorists are no longer as good at killing people as they used to be.​

If Islamic terrorism is such a threat to Europe, how come the number of terrorist casualties has fallen, as the number of Muslims has risen?

 

[TSwizzle]

It should be noted that, after decades of significant presence of Muslims in Europe, no Muslim political parties have yet emerged anywhere. If they are trying to take over as a body of people unified by their religion, they are not showing any signs of doing so through what would be the easiest and most straightforward way available: enter the political arena, establish political parties with programs based on Islamic teachings, and gather enough votes to enter local and national parliaments.

Why should they make a political party? They aren't going to get their will through the ballot box.

Ballot box ? muslims don't need no stinking ballot box ! The handover is already under way in Europe. While the navel gazing liberals were inspecting the lint and wondering about which bathroom the transgender eight year old should be using at school, the halal meals were being ushered in on the quiet to muslims and infidels alike.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That is the subject I am discussing.

No, you changed it. You earlier claimed or implied that Christian teachings were no better than Christian ones. But present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings.

If we keep the faith of our parents then how do you account for the evolution of ideas?

I didn't say that people keep the faith of their parents. I said that people usually keep the faith they already have, if it's strong and the faith dominant around them. And of course they often tend to try to pass on the faith to their children, to different degrees. But other members of the community they interact with children (older children, young adults, people generally admired in the community) can have a huge influence as well, sometimes greater than those of their parents.
And yes, third parties can have an influence too; I'm talking about what usually happens, not what always happens

Moreover, I'm talking about a person who has faith, not a person who nominally holds a belief she doesn't care about. Faith involves (or is, depending on one's conception) an emotional commitment to some belief. If the commitment is strong, it's much more difficult to remove. And in present-day Islam, the commitment (the faith) is a lot stronger on average than it is in present-day European Christianity (and overall, than in Christianity).

How come people converted in the first place?

Plenty of different ways, but in many cases, there were no conversion, but claims of conversion at sword point. That still works over time, because if people fear they'll be killed or otherwise seriously punished unless they show adherence to Islam, they probably will, and their children will be raised showing real adherence to Islam.
Of course, that's not the only reason. People in some cases have no strong faith in any religion, and then they can be converted to Islam. Or it may be that some people they hold in high regard, or even are loyal to (like community leaders) convert - or claim to convert out of fear, or for personal gain, etc.
There are plenty of reasons. But the fact is that the Muslims going to Europe for the last several years (and decades) have remained Muslims in nearly all cases, and their children are also nearly always Muslims, and their teachings have not gotten significantly better (in many cases, they got worse, due to influence from other Muslims).
Another fact is that you're still changing the subject. The point remains that current Christian teachings are overall considerably less evil than current Muslim teachings.

But with regard to the new point you're making, let me try from another perspective: if people just respond to economic incentives and not what they were taught (and have faith in) by parents, leaders, peers, etc., then why is it the case that the vast majority of people do not convert?
Let me get back to that. You said:

Islam today is different than Christianity today because economic incentives are different in the different regions. This can explain all the differences. This means that a Muslim moved to the west should start to change their faith in a liberal fashion. Which is exactly what we get. The fact that it doesn't happen overnight is used as evidence of Islamic evil. As if that proves that Islam is fundamentaly different to Christianity. I'm sorry if reality disagrees with you.

But that is not at all exactly what we get. What we get is greater Islamic influence in Europe, and less freedoms as a result. Yes, some Muslims do change. But your theory is that that explains all the differences, and that "a Muslim moved to the west should start to change their faith in a liberal fashion".
Sometimes that happens, and sometimes - more often - it seems it does not, or it does to a very small extent (so, that the result is a person a bit more liberal than before, but still far less so than what is common in non Muslim Europeans).
At least, that is what appears to be the case based on what's happening in Europe, how freedom is being eroded, how so many people fear for their lives due to Islamic threats, how young women are treated (forced marriages, etc.), how Muslims tend to threat gay Muslims or former Muslims, etc.

I have another theory to why you don't want to keep discussing this

Of course you do. It's a false and epistemically unjustified theory.

 

[Jayjay]

The fact that most of the recent troublemakers in Paris and Brussels were second or third generation immigrants should be a data point against the hypothesis that muslims will automatically moderate themselves when settling in Europe.

 

[bilby]

The fact that most of the recent troublemakers in Paris and Brussels were second or third generation immigrants should be a data point against the hypothesis that muslims will automatically moderate themselves when settling in Europe.

And also a data point against the hypothesis that limiting immigration could help to prevent such attacks.

 

[Jayjay]

The fact that most of the recent troublemakers in Paris and Brussels were second or third generation immigrants should be a data point against the hypothesis that muslims will automatically moderate themselves when settling in Europe.

And also a data point against the hypothesis that limiting immigration could help to prevent such attacks.

It does. 20 or 30 years down the line.

 

[TSwizzle]

The fact that most of the recent troublemakers in Paris and Brussels were second or third generation immigrants should be a data point against the hypothesis that muslims will automatically moderate themselves when settling in Europe.

I don't think "troublemakers" quite covers it.

Two university students have been convicted of wanting to kill on London’s streets in the name of Islamic State in what counter-terrorism officials believe was the most significant jihadi plot targeting Britain in a decade. Police, soldiers and civilians were the intended targets of the conspiracy, with a moped being used to stage drive-by killings after the terrorists had gained a gun, silencer and ammunition from a London-based criminal. Ringleader Tarik Hassane, 22, pleaded guilty to having directed others in the plot through encrypted social media programs, while he was a medical student. His friend Suhaib Majeed, 21, a physics student at King’s College London and a prize-winning maths student, was convicted of the plot by a jury at the Old Bailey. Both were born and raised in west London and were friends from Westminster City school. They were lured by extremist Islamist online propaganda and personal contacts to throw away glittering futures.

Guardian

 

[untermensche]

The fact that most of the recent troublemakers in Paris and Brussels were second or third generation immigrants should be a data point against the hypothesis that muslims will automatically moderate themselves when settling in Europe.

You can pretend all you want that this violence is not an aftershock of the US invasion.

These massive crimes, this blowback, is a reason you don't carry out bigger crimes and attack other nations.

And trade Saddam Hussein for ISIS.

 

[bilby]

And also a data point against the hypothesis that limiting immigration could help to prevent such attacks.

It does. 20 or 30 years down the line.

So you are opposed to immigration because you are scared of people who haven't even been born yet?

That's some seriously presumptuous paranoia.

There is a simple reason why second and third generation immigrants are easier to radicalize than their immigrant forebears - Racism.

New immigrants are escaping from somewhere they don't want to be, to get to somewhere they think will be better - and usually they are correct. Sure, the locals are standoffish and even abusive; But that's better then being shot at in a civil war. A new immigrant can tolerate a bit of racism, because it is generally the lesser of two evils. Being treated as second-class citizens in their new home is tolerable, because they think of themselves as newcomers; They know that they are never going to be native Europeans, and they are unsurprised by their treatment, even if they are disappointed by it. They do their best to integrate, but are never really able to fully do so, because the racist elements in their new home won't allow that.

But his children and grandchildren grow up in Europe, as Europeans; They don't see themselves as outsiders or incomers, they are just treated as lesser beings by the racists for no reason other than an accident of parentage over which they had zero influence. Even so, despite being told to 'Go back where you came from' in their own home towns; despite being abused, assaulted, or shunned by their neighbours, most of them still are not radicalized. But it is no shock that a few are tempted by Imams who tell them how great things were back in the Middle East (or Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or wherever), and how they are really Gods chosen people, and are being abused and looked down on by people who are beneath them. Their immigrant parents and grandparents would never fall for that shtick; They KNOW what a shithole their country of origin is, from personal experience. But the kids and grandkids don't know about that; all they know is that the white guys won't give them a break - that they are abused, accused of being terrorists, passed over for jobs and promotions, shunned by the neighbours, beaten up by skinheads if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, or if they dare to try to date a white girl or boy.

Put in that position, it's a sign of impressive forbearance that so few of them grow up to support the terrorists. The fact that an overwhelming majority of second and third generation immigrants in Europe do NOT support the terrorists shows clearly that the 'cause' of that support is not immigration (or even immigration plus time); The cause is racism and a failure to allow them to integrate. I knew many first generation Bangladeshi immigrants to the UK; and their children. The parents dearly wanted to integrate and become real Englishmen. They were the only people in the area who knew the lyrics to the second verse of the national anthem; and who stood with their heads bowed when the anthem was played. The children could not understand why their parents so loved a country where they were clearly despised. They didn't want to become terrorists; but they didn't want to be English first, and Bangladeshi second. Denied an identity by the English, they instead embraced their identity as Bangladeshis (albeit in a way that would be very puzzling to people still in Bangladesh) - to the detriment of both communities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why should they make a political party? They aren't going to get their will through the ballot box.

I don't know about Nevada, but in the UK it is precisely through the ballot box that people get their will.

The Islamists have no hope of getting what they want voted in.

 

[angelo]

In your case, the problem is your inexcusable ignorance and apparent ability to approach the subject rationally.


Muhammad carked it 1384 years ago. In the 1384 years since he died, the world, including the Islamic world, has changed drastically. Making predictions about Muslims today, based on the behaviour of a tyrant who died 1384 years ago, is just complete and utter unmitigated idiocy.

The one big lie is that islam can be compatible with Western culture. It is not and never will be.

If you don't know anything about history, your predictions of the future are worthless.

Whenever a sizeable minority of muslims congregate in Western society, they make more and more demands, like using their own sharia laws for example.

'They' don't demand Sharia law. This is what I mean by a lack of rationality; you take the actions of a tiny minority and generalise about an entire group.

And you are blinded by idealistic ideology. Meanwhile, every day a new islamic terrorist attack kills dozens and injures hundreds.

Out of hundreds of millions. Terrorism is about as dangerous as lightning.

A person who spent hours posting on discussion boards about the dangers of lightning would rightly be considered to have an insane obsession with a minor threat.

Here is something I posted on another thread that is also relevant here:

View attachment 6171

Source.

Terrorism in Europe can only be said to be getting 'worse' if you mean the terrorists are no longer as good at killing people as they used to be.​

If Islamic terrorism is such a threat to Europe, how come the number of terrorist casualties has fallen, as the number of Muslims has risen?

Has lightening killed 270 million people since around 700ad? The deaths in Brussels were caused by lightning and here i was thinking those nasty islamics were responsible!

 

[angelo]

The fact that most of the recent troublemakers in Paris and Brussels were second or third generation immigrants should be a data point against the hypothesis that muslims will automatically moderate themselves when settling in Europe.

And also a data point against the hypothesis that limiting immigration could help to prevent such attacks.

You can twist the data to suit any ideology, but the facts are that if there were no backward moslems living in Europe or anywhere else for that matter, there would still be the odd terrorist attack every now and then, but the scale of attacks happening practically every other day wouldn't happen. No moslems, no deaths!

 

[angelo]

The fact that most of the recent troublemakers in Paris and Brussels were second or third generation immigrants should be a data point against the hypothesis that muslims will automatically moderate themselves when settling in Europe.

You can pretend all you want that this violence is not an aftershock of the US invasion.

These massive crimes, this blowback, is a reason you don't carry out bigger crimes and attack other nations.

And trade Saddam Hussein for ISIS.

Pure unadulterated bullshit!! Simply blaming the West alla Noam Chomsky is bullshit and if you look at islams history you'd know it.

 

[untermensche]

You can pretend all you want that this violence is not an aftershock of the US invasion.

These massive crimes, this blowback, is a reason you don't carry out bigger crimes and attack other nations.

And trade Saddam Hussein for ISIS.

Pure unadulterated bullshit!! Simply blaming the West alla Noam Chomsky is bullshit and if you look at islams history you'd know it.

At least you have heard of Chomsky.

The US attack of Iraq gave us ISIS.

It therefore gave us the Paris and now the Brussels attack.

 

[bilby]

And also a data point against the hypothesis that limiting immigration could help to prevent such attacks.

You can twist the data to suit any ideology, but the facts are that if there were no backward moslems living in Europe or anywhere else for that matter, there would still be the odd terrorist attack every now and then, but the scale of attacks happening practically every other day wouldn't happen. No moslems, no deaths!

Jeez, you really never do get tired of being clearly, obviously and demonstrably wrong, do you?

Attacks do NOT happen anywhere CLOSE to 'one every other day'.

And unless you have evidence that Anders Brevik, or the guys in ETA, or the IRA, or the red Army Faction, were Muslims, your "No moslems, no deaths!" idea is utterly stupid. Even if it were true (and it clearly isn't), it wouldn't be very helpful in guiding our behaviour. If there were no humans in Europe, there would be no deaths there from terrorism - but that's really not a very helpful observation, despite having the great advantage (over your claim) of being actually true.

 

[Jayjay]

It does. 20 or 30 years down the line.

So you are opposed to immigration because you are scared of people who haven't even been born yet?

That's some seriously presumptuous paranoia.

There is a simple reason why second and third generation immigrants are easier to radicalize than their immigrant forebears - Racism.

That's simplistic, not simple. Racism isn't the root cause. It's mostly a reaction to societal problems, and the true causes are structural. For one reason or another, some societies are abysmal at integrating new immigrants. US is pretty good at it, some European countries are okayish, some have failed miserably. I have no confidence in my own country's ability to do any better than France, Beligum or Sweden have in the past. And now they have huge problems which are likely to be the norm in about a generation.

it's not about being afraid of people, it's about being concerned about societal problems that we haven't figured out how to deal with yet (or aren't willing to deal with for some reason). Would you dismiss warnings about population unchecked population growth and resource usage as "presumptious paranoia" and irrational fear of "people who haven't been born yet"? Or worries about emissions as unfounded fear of cars that haven't been made yet? Or calls to regulate big investment banks as phobia of bad loans that don't even exist yet?