Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

Clutching at straws now are we!

How is pointing out gross errors of fact even remotely able to be characterised as "clutching at straws"?

You are wrong on pretty much every factual point you have attempted in this thread. Clearly and demonstrably wrong. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you; people have provided evidence to show where and how you are wrong. Yet you continue to make utterly false claims that have no bearing in reality; and now you are making meta-errors - you are saying demonstrably false things about the nature of the arguments used to rebut your nonsense.

Right now, your only smart move would be to shut up; every post you make simply adds to the vast pile of evidence in this thread that you don't care about the truth, and only care about pushing your unevidenced and fallacious opinions.

I am just grateful that I am not on the same side of this debate as you; those who agree with your conclusions must cringe when you post yet another easily refuted claim, that serves only to weaken your argument.

I don't have any problem with Moslems. I worked for an Arab company for six years. I have Palestinian friends. Some aspects of Sharia Law (if applied) are very reasonable well thought out.
However Europe will very likely become an Islamic region. Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth. Most migrants now come from Islamic countries and generally get on with their lives work etc. Some are very educated.
Our recent policies in Europe to throw open our flood gates and the policy to drive millions into Europe would accelerate the process. I would not say we shall be come Islamic by 2050 but more likely within around 100 years.
The problem however, is how will our new Islamic governments treat homosexuality, atheism, other religions and certain cultural aspects of European lifestyles that may conflict with Islamic Law (eg eating pork products.
Will democracy be preserved or will it erode??
These are just some of the questions we can ask today.
Will Islamic laws in Europe allow for other voices or will they be exterminated or restricted.

 

[bigfield]

How is pointing out gross errors of fact even remotely able to be characterised as "clutching at straws"?

You are wrong on pretty much every factual point you have attempted in this thread. Clearly and demonstrably wrong. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you; people have provided evidence to show where and how you are wrong. Yet you continue to make utterly false claims that have no bearing in reality; and now you are making meta-errors - you are saying demonstrably false things about the nature of the arguments used to rebut your nonsense.

Right now, your only smart move would be to shut up; every post you make simply adds to the vast pile of evidence in this thread that you don't care about the truth, and only care about pushing your unevidenced and fallacious opinions.

I am just grateful that I am not on the same side of this debate as you; those who agree with your conclusions must cringe when you post yet another easily refuted claim, that serves only to weaken your argument.

I don't have any problem with Moslems. I worked for an Arab company for six years. I have Palestinian friends. Some aspects of Sharia Law (if applied) are very reasonable well thought out.
However Europe will very likely become an Islamic region. Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth. Most migrants now come from Islamic countries and generally get on with their lives work etc. Some are very educated.
Our recent policies in Europe to throw open our flood gates and the policy to drive millions into Europe would accelerate the process. I would not say we shall be come Islamic by 2050 but more likely within around 100 years.
The problem however, is how will our new Islamic governments treat homosexuality, atheism, other religions and certain cultural aspects of European lifestyles that may conflict with Islamic Law (eg eating pork products.
Will democracy be preserved or will it erode??
These are just some of the questions we can ask today.
Will Islamic laws in Europe allow for other voices or will they be exterminated or restricted.

Europeans are more likely to become predominantly irreligious than predominantly Muslim.

 

[DrZoidberg]

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/nej-polisen-har-inte-kastat-in-handduken/

Now the Swedish police has made a statement. The police weren't there for the film teams protection. They were there because somebody had called them in the vicinity and they'd taken a report. They left because someone else had called the police and the cops went there instead. At no point had the team requested police protection and there was no reason to think they'd get into trouble simply by just being white journalists.

They also added that Sjuneson is notorious for such media manipulations involving the police. This is not the first time he's done similar things. The police who was called in weren't aware of Sjuneson's reputation and if they'd known that he was about to try to annoy and provoke people of colour they would have stayed. Not so much for the protection of the team, but for the protection of the people they'd be harassing.

The English translation through freetranslation.com is not perfect. This could well be caused by Media manipulation. However in this scene local people intervened to stop this escalating.
Media groups often try to create events to create news so you could be right. However who were these people who were reacting. However this is still speculative. Further why did these people start putting on masks and attacking? We can only speculate.

The police didn't say anything about the attack since they weren't there. I'd say reports by the "heroic" immigrants intervening is about as reliable as the news crew's. Nobody who wasn't there knows for sure. I don't.

But based on Sjuneson's track record he had it coming. He's a total dick.

An interesting fact about Sjunesson is that he's a famous artist and cartoonist. He's really smart and good. I love his work. We used to have friends in common. I say "used to" since all his old friends have broken off contact with him. This used to be a guy who didn't read the news and didn't care about the world. A massive cynic and misanthrope. He's a great artist but extremely ignorant. His recent political interest took all his friends by surprise. He's the perfect poster boy for "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

 

[faded_Glory]

I would not say we shall be come Islamic by 2050 but more likely within around 100 years.
The problem however, is how will our new Islamic governments treat homosexuality, atheism, other religions and certain cultural aspects of European lifestyles that may conflict with Islamic Law (eg eating pork products.

It is impossible to predict such trends 100 years ahead. There are far too many variables, not to mention unknown unknowns plus random shocks to the system for such predictions to be anything more than fantasy. 'Our new Islamic government', what nonsense. There have been substantial Muslim communities living in Europe for 50 years now, and in all that time not a single Muslim political party has emerged anywhere.

What we should spend our energy on is trying to contain and eradicate extremism. For this we need help from the Muslim population. Antagonising them with xenophobic propaganda is not going to help with that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who would have thunk, religion has nothing to do with Islamic terrorist attacks.

http://www.thenation.com/article/he...attack-in-the-world-says-about-isiss-motives/

 

[untermensche]

Who would have thunk, religion has nothing to do with Islamic terrorist attacks.

http://www.thenation.com/article/he...attack-in-the-world-says-about-isiss-motives/

More than anything, the terrorist group’s outward expressions of religious fervor serve its secular objectives of controlling resources and territory.

More than anything, the terrorist group’s outward expressions of religious fervor serve its secular objectives of controlling resources and territory.

More than anything, the terrorist group’s outward expressions of religious fervor serve its secular objectives of controlling resources and territory.

No shit!!

It has within it a bunch of former high ranking members of the Iraqi military.

They don't give two shits about Allah.

They understand the power of controlling oil.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would not say we shall be come Islamic by 2050 but more likely within around 100 years.
The problem however, is how will our new Islamic governments treat homosexuality, atheism, other religions and certain cultural aspects of European lifestyles that may conflict with Islamic Law (eg eating pork products.

It is impossible to predict such trends 100 years ahead. There are far too many variables, not to mention unknown unknowns plus random shocks to the system for such predictions to be anything more than fantasy. 'Our new Islamic government', what nonsense. There have been substantial Muslim communities living in Europe for 50 years now, and in all that time not a single Muslim political party has emerged anywhere.

What we should spend our energy on is trying to contain and eradicate extremism. For this we need help from the Muslim population. Antagonising them with xenophobic propaganda is not going to help with that.

If the country's majority become Muslim, it will most likely become a Muslim country. The question is, will it be sensible as the Christians have learnt to be, by allowing diverse views ideologies, democracy etc or will it go back in time (as we were in the Middle Ages). This is the main variable.

 

[whichphilosophy]

More than anything, the terrorist group’s outward expressions of religious fervor serve its secular objectives of controlling resources and territory.

More than anything, the terrorist group’s outward expressions of religious fervor serve its secular objectives of controlling resources and territory.

More than anything, the terrorist group’s outward expressions of religious fervor serve its secular objectives of controlling resources and territory.

No shit!!

It has within it a bunch of former high ranking members of the Iraqi military.

They don't give two shits about Allah.

They understand the power of controlling oil.

This is true because if the US had let the Armed forces retain their jobs under new leadership, we wouldn't have this mess.

As Lenin once said, religion is the opiate of the people, so what better way is there to drum up support plus paradise in the afterlife.
Really its the aftermath of the US fiasco, oil, tribal divides and religion.

 

[TSwizzle]

Who would have thunk, religion has nothing to do with Islamic terrorist attacks.

Only the willfully clueless.

 

[untermensche]

Who would have thunk, religion has nothing to do with Islamic terrorist attacks.

Only the willfully clueless.

The clueless position is the one that fails to see that religion is being used as a tool by the leaders of ISIS.

It is a good tool for mobilizing people. Parents indoctrinate the children willfully.

But it is merely a tool for people with secular aims. Control of land, populations and resources.

 

[TSwizzle]

Europeans are more likely to become predominantly irreligious than predominantly Muslim.

And yet, the number of mosques being built increases.

 

[bigfield]

Europeans are more likely to become predominantly irreligious than predominantly Muslim.

And yet, the number of mosques being built increases.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

The number of mosques being built is increasing because Muslims are immigrating to Europe. But among the population born in Europe, 'none' is the fastest-growing religious category. The same is true in the Middle East.

Christianity had a firm hold on Europe for centuries, but despite it's incredibly deep roots and political power structure, it is being defeated by modernisation, especially information exchanges like the Internet which prevent religions from exploiting ignorance.

Western society has already passed the era of religious control, and has been inoculated. We're in an age where irreligion is increasing to become the dominant category, and religious pluralism is the norm. Anyone who claims that Islam has a chance of taking over Europe simply hasn't been paying attention to history.

 

[angelo]

How is pointing out gross errors of fact even remotely able to be characterised as "clutching at straws"?

You are wrong on pretty much every factual point you have attempted in this thread. Clearly and demonstrably wrong. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you; people have provided evidence to show where and how you are wrong. Yet you continue to make utterly false claims that have no bearing in reality; and now you are making meta-errors - you are saying demonstrably false things about the nature of the arguments used to rebut your nonsense.

Right now, your only smart move would be to shut up; every post you make simply adds to the vast pile of evidence in this thread that you don't care about the truth, and only care about pushing your unevidenced and fallacious opinions.

I am just grateful that I am not on the same side of this debate as you; those who agree with your conclusions must cringe when you post yet another easily refuted claim, that serves only to weaken your argument.

I don't have any problem with Moslems. I worked for an Arab company for six years. I have Palestinian friends. Some aspects of Sharia Law (if applied) are very reasonable well thought out.
However Europe will very likely become an Islamic region. Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth. Most migrants now come from Islamic countries and generally get on with their lives work etc. Some are very educated.
Our recent policies in Europe to throw open our flood gates and the policy to drive millions into Europe would accelerate the process. I would not say we shall be come Islamic by 2050 but more likely within around 100 years.
The problem however, is how will our new Islamic governments treat homosexuality, atheism, other religions and certain cultural aspects of European lifestyles that may conflict with Islamic Law (eg eating pork products.
Will democracy be preserved or will it erode??
These are just some of the questions we can ask today.
Will Islamic laws in Europe allow for other voices or will they be exterminated or restricted.

The answer to that is in a biography of Mohammed the warlord paedophile. Is xtianity or any other religion tolerated in islamic countries today? Is the Golden Rule practiced by any islamic regime anywhere. Western culture clashes with islamic culture. Places like Molenbeek are already around 70% muslim. If one wishes to see what the future of Europe looks like, look at Molenbeek.

 

[TSwizzle]

The number of mosques being built is increasing because Muslims are immigrating to Europe.

Thanks, Captain obvious.

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't have any problem with Moslems. I worked for an Arab company for six years. I have Palestinian friends. Some aspects of Sharia Law (if applied) are very reasonable well thought out.
However Europe will very likely become an Islamic region. Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth. Most migrants now come from Islamic countries and generally get on with their lives work etc. Some are very educated.
Our recent policies in Europe to throw open our flood gates and the policy to drive millions into Europe would accelerate the process. I would not say we shall be come Islamic by 2050 but more likely within around 100 years.
The problem however, is how will our new Islamic governments treat homosexuality, atheism, other religions and certain cultural aspects of European lifestyles that may conflict with Islamic Law (eg eating pork products.
Will democracy be preserved or will it erode??
These are just some of the questions we can ask today.
Will Islamic laws in Europe allow for other voices or will they be exterminated or restricted.

The answer to that is in a biography of Mohammed the warlord paedophile. Is xtianity or any other religion tolerated in islamic countries today? Is the Golden Rule practiced by any islamic regime anywhere. Western culture clashes with islamic culture. Places like Molenbeek are already around 70% muslim. If one wishes to see what the future of Europe looks like, look at Molenbeek.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sint-Jans-Molenbeek#Muslim_community

Over the past four decades, a substantial Muslim community of mainly Moroccan descent has established itself in Molenbeek, particularly on the eastern inner-city side of the municipality. They represent 39.3% of Molenbeek's population. In the Brussels-Capital Region, it is the municipality of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode that has the largest proportion of Muslims, 49.3%

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Yes, I did. Christians use the Bible as source material. Muslims use the Quran. Both books equivalent. I've already created another thread discussing how similar they are. Since modern Christianity in practice is different than modern Islam in practice this needs to be explained somehow. Ie their teachings are the same yet produce different results.

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).

I think we agree mostly. What we disagree is the speed of the evolution. I suggest studying what was considered the norm in the "Christian" west just a couple of generations ago. "Christian" moral traditions have evolved at lightning speed. Which also is true for Islamic values. In Britain's first survey of women and childbirth conducted in the 1940'ies it had little gems like "who took care of your husband when you were in bed with your child?" Which was considered a perfectly fine question back then. That might as well been on another planet. I doubt that question would fly even in a country like Iran today.

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.

We know why they initially converted to begin with. The first start in Mecka and Medina is quite complicated and interesting as such. People converted because Mohammed was a good leader and had good and progressive ideals. Ie nothing to do with religion. Just pure politics. Later when Islam spread away from the Arabian peninsula they did so in a world with a power vacuum. The Persian and Byzantine empires were bankrupt and unable to defend themselves. The fact that Persia pretty much imploded at the merest poke was used as a massive propaganda win for Islam. Which created converts. They didn't force people to convert. Being allowed to covert was a kind of reward used. It can be compared with being a party member in China or in USSR. Initially most people weren't. By making it hard to convert they built up a desire to covert.

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:

Economic factors aren't the only pressures. There's also status. If immigrants are unable to compete with natives on an equal basis they'll turn to alternative sources by which to generate status. So a Muslim immigrant might stay in the Muslim community simply because he will have a higher status in that microcosm. This will have a retarding effect. But the primary pressure will still be economic. Muslims in Stockholm still face the same economic realities as any Swede. The difference is only noticable because we focus so much on differences. If we instead focus on the similarities then suddenly that difference is much less apparent. Islam is reduced to window dressing.

Here's an example. My girlfriend has a close friend who has Muslim Bosnian heritage. Her parents wanted her to marry a Muslim Bosnian. Their daughter could not care less. They threatened to send her back to Bosnia if she didn't obey and marry a Bosnian Muslim. What happened was that the Swedish boyfriend she had in secret got her pregnant. She chose to keep the baby. The shit hit the fan. It took a few years and eventually the family came around. If we compare her life with any Swedish girl there were no difference in the outcomes. The difference lies in the grief and emotional conflict with her parents.

Forced marriages, while terrible, it's still on the extreme end of Islamic practices. It's not standard for this community. Also... it's important to understand that this is not an Islamic tradition. This is a tradition standard in any predominantly agrarian economy. It was standard in Sweden a hundred years ago. It was the first world war that was the watershed event that ended the practice in the west. Also right bang in the cusp of the shift from a mostly agrarian economy to an industrial economy. Whenever a culture is industrial forced marriages go away. It's happening in India right now. They're right now experiencing how this shift looks like. So we know we need to do nothing. This practice will die if left alone. I'm not saying we should leave it alone. I'm just saying we don't have to do shit.

Homosexuality is the same. Being gay in Sweden was illegal until 1977. USA only reluctantly allowed gay marriages a few years ago. If you don't see how this is the same practice you're an idiot. The difference lies in the degree. Not on the value itself. So I see now reason to toot our horn on this.

And lastly our freedoms aren't being eroded. Name one freedom that has been eroded due to Muslim immigration? Just one!?! This is such a fucking idiotic argument, since it's so obviously untrue.

 

[bigfield]

The number of mosques being built is increasing because Muslims are immigrating to Europe.

Thanks, Captain obvious.

How feeble.

 

[Jayjay]

Only the willfully clueless.

The clueless position is the one that fails to see that religion is being used as a tool by the leaders of ISIS.

It is a good tool for mobilizing people. Parents indoctrinate the children willfully.

But it is merely a tool for people with secular aims. Control of land, populations and resources.

Sounds a lot like the old "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. Just replace "guns" with "religion". Doesn't convince me that religion isn't a huge part of the problem though.

 

[untermensche]

The clueless position is the one that fails to see that religion is being used as a tool by the leaders of ISIS.

It is a good tool for mobilizing people. Parents indoctrinate the children willfully.

But it is merely a tool for people with secular aims. Control of land, populations and resources.

Sounds a lot like the old "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. Just replace "guns" with "religion". Doesn't convince me that religion isn't a huge part of the problem though.

Sounds like somebody can't make a distinction between a lifeless object and humans being used by other humans.

 

[Bomb#20]

So you explain, cogently and clearly, exactly what cause-and-effect sequence of events makes something very bad happen -- right after you call expecting that bad thing to happen "seriously presumptuous paranoia".

That's some seriously presumptuous schizophrenia, dude.

No, just optimism.

I explained why it happened in the past; I assume that when we know why something bad happened in the past, we might take steps to prevent it from happening in the future. Without chucking the baby out with the bath water.

If lots of single vehicle crashes occur on a particular section of road, and it is known that this is due to people not being aware of a hazard at that spot, closing the road entirely is a poor solution. Once the cause is known, you can either remove the hazard, or add a warning sign; it is stupid and unnecessary to close the road - even if that would achieve the immediate goal of eliminating the crashes.

I see. So which are you saying?

Are you saying (a) that if the European countries importing large numbers of Muslims put up "Caution: Road Hazard Ahead"-like signs reading "Caution: Don't be racist against Muslims", this will cause the locals to stop discriminating against Muslims, and that will cause Muslim children to grow up feeling accepted, which will immunize them against the Islamist radicals trying to persuade children to become Islamist radicals?

Or are you saying (b) that when you wrote "That's some seriously presumptuous paranoia", what you meant to say was "That's some seriously fact-based pessimism."?

[/sarcasm]

The circumstance that you are an incurable optimist is not a particularly confidence-inspiring qualification for being a good judge of whether another person is a paranoid or merely a realist.

You do this over and over again. First you convince yourself of something counterintuitive. Then you post an argument for it that is unbelievably lame. Then you take it as a premise that your argument is not only correct but is so intuitively obviously correct that explaining why someone else doesn't agree with you is a psychological puzzle to be solved. And from that premise you derive a conclusion that's an ad hominem attack on people who disagree with you.