Europe submits voluntarily

[repoman]

The conspiracy goes deeper

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So the way she's using it, it might as well refer to any shady part of town or any area where the narco-scene congregates -- all that's needed is that people feel unsafe there. It is not implied that the police or other security and emergency services won't go there, it's not implied that this is a new phenomenon, and it is not implied that it has anything in particular to do with Muslims, or that it's specifically non-Muslims who feel unsafe.

There were parts of town in the small town I grew up you avoided because they'd frequently become the scene of brawls between punks and skinheads, or because it's where the narcos hang out - and it didn't mean anyone would actively try to drive you out, least of all because you're not a Muslim.

So basically what she's saying is subjective safety isn't what it should be in some places. That's a very long shot from the lies Fox et al. have been spreading, and it's extremely dishonest of them to present this as "see? Even Merkel admits we were right all along!"

This is what I have long suspected--it's areas where the emergency services only go with care. The bad parts of town, whether it's due to Muslims or not.

 

[Jokodo]

So the way she's using it, it might as well refer to any shady part of town or any area where the narco-scene congregates -- all that's needed is that people feel unsafe there. It is not implied that the police or other security and emergency services won't go there, it's not implied that this is a new phenomenon, and it is not implied that it has anything in particular to do with Muslims, or that it's specifically non-Muslims who feel unsafe.

There were parts of town in the small town I grew up you avoided because they'd frequently become the scene of brawls between punks and skinheads, or because it's where the narcos hang out - and it didn't mean anyone would actively try to drive you out, least of all because you're not a Muslim.

So basically what she's saying is subjective safety isn't what it should be in some places. That's a very long shot from the lies Fox et al. have been spreading, and it's extremely dishonest of them to present this as "see? Even Merkel admits we were right all along!"

This is what I have long suspected--it's areas where the emergency services only go with care. The bad parts of town, whether it's due to Muslims or not.

Not even Talking about emergency services...

 

[angelo]

Annual tobacco related deaths in Australia: estimated 15,000, many of which non-smokers -- estimates for the death toll of secondhand smoke alone range from the low hundred to the low thousands.
angelo: "there's nothing we can do about that"
Annual alcohol related deaths in Australia: estimated 5-6,000.
angelo: "let's raise a pint to that"
Annual road fatalities in Australia: between 1,200 and roughly 2,000.
angelo: "traffic rules are strict enough as they are. Those bastards just want to pull money out of our pockets!"

Annual terrorism deaths in Australia: 0.3 (including assailants).
angelo: "the end is nigh! We have to give the government the power to strip of all their rights anyone vaguely suspected of diffusely sympathising with the terrorists, and to decide over life and death based on a hunch, or we'll all be dead soon!"

Spot the logic error.

ETA: And I'm saying this as a smoker, and as someone who likes his pint or two, or half a dozen of them, as much as the other guy. I fully admit that I and my like represent a hazard to public safety many times more severe than terrorism -- and I don't even feel particularly bad about it. Many times more than almost zero is still a very small number, you know?

Also a disclaimer: I'm using the moniker "angelo" as a stand in for the generic right-winger. I don't know this particular angelo's stances on smoking of traffic rules, though I suspect they aren't far from what I'm illustrating above.

No we can't stop those deaths, but we sure can stop even it's just one death at the hands of barbaric savages by refusing to allow even one returning jihadi!

 

[Jokodo]

Annual tobacco related deaths in Australia: estimated 15,000, many of which non-smokers -- estimates for the death toll of secondhand smoke alone range from the low hundred to the low thousands.
angelo: "there's nothing we can do about that"
Annual alcohol related deaths in Australia: estimated 5-6,000.
angelo: "let's raise a pint to that"
Annual road fatalities in Australia: between 1,200 and roughly 2,000.
angelo: "traffic rules are strict enough as they are. Those bastards just want to pull money out of our pockets!"

Annual terrorism deaths in Australia: 0.3 (including assailants).
angelo: "the end is nigh! We have to give the government the power to strip of all their rights anyone vaguely suspected of diffusely sympathising with the terrorists, and to decide over life and death based on a hunch, or we'll all be dead soon!"

Spot the logic error.

ETA: And I'm saying this as a smoker, and as someone who likes his pint or two, or half a dozen of them, as much as the other guy. I fully admit that I and my like represent a hazard to public safety many times more severe than terrorism -- and I don't even feel particularly bad about it. Many times more than almost zero is still a very small number, you know?

Also a disclaimer: I'm using the moniker "angelo" as a stand in for the generic right-winger. I don't know this particular angelo's stances on smoking of traffic rules, though I suspect they aren't far from what I'm illustrating above.

No we can't stop those deaths, but we sure can stop even it's just one death at the hands of barbaric savages by refusing to allow even one returning jihadi!

We can't stop every road death etc., but we could easily halve them by upping the fines for traffic rule violations, substantially lowering speed limits, maybe even require permits to use a car at all in certain areas (i.e. wherever public transport is a viable alternative, only emergency services and people with disabilities are allow, and maybe anyone doing a substantial transport on a time limited permit).

It's not that we can't, it's that you find the measures needed too intrusive, even though the lives saved would number in the thousands -- but at the same time, you suggest more intrusive measures to avoid a handful of deaths.

It really makes no sense, my dear.

 

[angelo]

So in the name of appeasement of these savages, you're prepared to sacrifice any number of precious innocent lives!

 

[Jokodo]

So in the name of appeasement of these savages, you're prepared to sacrifice any number of precious innocent lives!

Not what I'm saying, no.

You, not me, are the one willing to sacrifice any number of precious innocent lives out of appeasement to poor drivers, when you pretend we can't stop road deaths, right after I've demonstrated that that problem is orders of magnitude more pressing than terrorism.

After we're done saving thousands of innocent lives tragically lost to those big ones, we may talk about peanuts like terrorism. Before that, it's frankly cynical to remove citizen's right to not have their own government shoot at them (a very basic right codified in the constitution) to ostensibly avoid a few isolated deaths when we're unwilling to limit citizen's right to drive 110 km/h (wholly arbitrary and explicitly revocable anyway) to avoid thousands.

 

[repoman]

Religious adherence is a colligative property. Especially for Islam. When there is power to be gained or maintained by "being" (even if it is a lie) muslim, then shit will be scary.



Most of us here are too individualistic and atomized to see this clearly.

Keep the virus out.

 

[Jokodo]

Religious adherence is a colligative property. Especially for Islam. When there is power to be gained or maintained by "being" (even if it is a lie) muslim, then shit will be scary.

View attachment 14873

Most of us here are too individualistic and atomized to see this clearly.

Keep the virus out.

Can you translate this into comprehensible English, German, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian or Montenegrin? Hell, I'd probably understand well-written Russian, Polish, Dutch, or Spanish or Italian better than this drivel though I can't claim to speak those languages...

 

[repoman]

Islam is more of a sociopolitical system, it has a tendency to be very harsh on non muslims, so people stay as nominal muslims for reasons that have nothing to do with the person rationally or even emotionally liking Islam - they just want good things and to not be oppressed. It happens in Christianity to some degree as well, but moreso in Islam now.

If a group is 3% muslim and the rest another religion there will be a very different dynamic than if 97% of the group is at least nominally muslim (with lots of hidden agnostics/atheists scared for their life).

The same can happen for other religions, but not as well as for Islam now and we are talking about now not the past.

Colligative properties of solutions are properties that depend upon the concentration of solute molecules or ions, but not upon the identity of the solute. Colligative properties include vapor pressure lowering, boiling point elevation, freezing point depression, and osmotic pressure.

The solute ions in this analogy would be individual muslims. They act as a group power in some situations.

Unless you can figure out a way to have these mind virus infected muslims deconvert as fast as the native christians already are, why invite them into these countries.

 

[Jokodo]

Unless you can figure out a way to have these mind virus infected muslims deconvert as fast as the native christians already are, why invite them into these countries.

Muslims are deconverting as fast as "native Christians". And why would that comparison even be relevant?
Next question?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We can't stop every road death etc., but we could easily halve them by upping the fines for traffic rule violations, substantially lowering speed limits, maybe even require permits to use a car at all in certain areas (i.e. wherever public transport is a viable alternative, only emergency services and people with disabilities are allow, and maybe anyone doing a substantial transport on a time limited permit).

It's not that we can't, it's that you find the measures needed too intrusive, even though the lives saved would number in the thousands -- but at the same time, you suggest more intrusive measures to avoid a handful of deaths.

It really makes no sense, my dear.

Disagree.

Upping the fines: They're already too high--they encourage policing for profit rather than for safety. I'd like to see the fine abolished. Your ticket gets you say 4 hours of picking up trash.

Lowering speed limits: Driver speed has little to do with speed limits, but rather conditions.

Not using cars in certain areas: In the last 30 years more often than not a trip to the office involves more stuff than I could reasonably carry on public transport. It's rare for grocery shopping to be so little I could carry it on public transport. I have three bins in the trunk that are about 2 cubic feet each. I would say most weeks I use more than one bin when the market 3 miles from here runs their Wednesday specials. In the last week I have brought home 300 pounds of sand and the week before a box I question whether I could have gotten it on a bus. (Big, heavy, awkward, whether I could make the turn at the top of the steps is questionable. Hitting people with it would have been a certainty.)

Now, for a change that would help matters:

Places that serve alcohol would be required to hold your ID when you're drinking. When you leave you take a breathalyzer and get your ID back. If you fail the breathalyzer and have no designated driver in your party the cops are notified electronically--and your car goes on a watch list for 8 hours. A license plate reader pings on your car, you get stopped and breathalyzered.

If you're in a situation where you can leave with your drink (for example, here on Fremont Street. There is a 4-block pedestrian mall--the whole thing is a place, although made up of many businesses. Some places sell drinks in containers meant to take with you on the mall) there's no breathalyzer, the notification is automatic.

If you're on the list and stopped your plate is removed from the watch list.

On the flip side, I would make it that you can't get a DUI in a bar parking lot unless your vehicle is actually moving.

- - - Updated - - -

Religious adherence is a colligative property. Especially for Islam. When there is power to be gained or maintained by "being" (even if it is a lie) muslim, then shit will be scary.

View attachment 14873

Most of us here are too individualistic and atomized to see this clearly.

Keep the virus out.

Can you translate this into comprehensible English, German, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian or Montenegrin? Hell, I'd probably understand well-written Russian, Polish, Dutch, or Spanish or Italian better than this drivel though I can't claim to speak those languages...

What's hard to understand about the picture?

Got any examples of countries where the statement isn't true?

 

[bilby]

Can you translate this into comprehensible English, German, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian or Montenegrin? Hell, I'd probably understand well-written Russian, Polish, Dutch, or Spanish or Italian better than this drivel though I can't claim to speak those languages...

What's hard to understand about the picture?

Got any examples of countries where the statement isn't true?

Do you have any examples of countries where the first part IS true?

I know a number of Muslims, in both Australia and the UK, and while I might, perhaps, characterize one as obsessed with football, and another as obsessed with her career (although neither likely fit the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of obsession), I cannot recall any of them discussing or raising the subject of minority rights in conversation - which is rather unexpected behaviour for someone who is alleged to be 'obsessed' with a subject.

 

[Jokodo]

Disagree.

Upping the fines: They're already too high--they encourage policing for profit rather than for safety. I'd like to see the fine abolished. Your ticket gets you say 4 hours of picking up trash.

Lowering speed limits: Driver speed has little to do with speed limits, but rather conditions.

Maybe as long as the fines are affordable.

Not using cars in certain areas: In the last 30 years more often than not a trip to the office involves more stuff than I could reasonably carry on public transport. It's rare for grocery shopping to be so little I could carry it on public transport.

It would require certain changes of behaviour, such as doing your shopping every other day on the way home from work rather than once a week. If that's what it takes to get down from the 34,000 road deaths the US had in 2013 to, say, 10,000, that seems a fair price.

I have three bins in the trunk that are about 2 cubic feet each. I would say most weeks I use more than one bin when the market 3 miles from here runs their Wednesday specials. In the last week I have brought home 300 pounds of sand and the week before a box I question whether I could have gotten it on a bus. (Big, heavy, awkward, whether I could make the turn at the top of the steps is questionable. Hitting people with it would have been a certainty.)

How often do you bring 300 pounds of sand? For those rare occasions, you'd either buy the services of a professional, or apply for a temporary permit for bulk transportation purposes. Neither will kill you.

Now, for a change that would help matters:

Places that serve alcohol would be required to hold your ID when you're drinking. When you leave you take a breathalyzer and get your ID back. If you fail the breathalyzer and have no designated driver in your party the cops are notified electronically--and your car goes on a watch list for 8 hours. A license plate reader pings on your car, you get stopped and breathalyzered.

If you're in a situation where you can leave with your drink (for example, here on Fremont Street. There is a 4-block pedestrian mall--the whole thing is a place, although made up of many businesses. Some places sell drinks in containers meant to take with you on the mall) there's no breathalyzer, the notification is automatic.

If you're on the list and stopped your plate is removed from the watch list.

On the flip side, I would make it that you can't get a DUI in a bar parking lot unless your vehicle is actually moving.

According to https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html less than a third of road fatalities in the US can be attributed to alcohol. The US, however, has a road fatality rate almost four times that of Britain and about twice that of Austria or Australia. Clearly, you're doing something very wrong beyond being too lax on drunk drivers. So even with 0 DUI deaths, you'd still have more than 15,000 excess deaths compared to Britain. (It looks slightly better when we look at the deaths per billion vehicle-kilometers rather than per 100,000 inhabitants, but that that only helps to make my point: Driving less will save many thousands of lives.)

- - - Updated - - -

Can you translate this into comprehensible English, German, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian or Montenegrin? Hell, I'd probably understand well-written Russian, Polish, Dutch, or Spanish or Italian better than this drivel though I can't claim to speak those languages...

What's hard to understand about the picture?

Got any examples of countries where the statement isn't true?

The picture is clear (if wrong, both parts of it). It's repoman's words that are unclear.

 

[angelo]

Can you translate this into comprehensible English, German, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian or Montenegrin? Hell, I'd probably understand well-written Russian, Polish, Dutch, or Spanish or Italian better than this drivel though I can't claim to speak those languages...

What's hard to understand about the picture?

Got any examples of countries where the statement isn't true?

Do you have any examples of countries where the first part IS true?

I know a number of Muslims, in both Australia and the UK, and while I might, perhaps, characterize one as obsessed with football, and another as obsessed with her career (although neither likely fit the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of obsession), I cannot recall any of them discussing or raising the subject of minority rights in conversation - which is rather unexpected behaviour for someone who is alleged to be 'obsessed' with a subject.

Is the world in which you live in even in this solar system?

 

[Jokodo]

Do you have any examples of countries where the first part IS true?

I know a number of Muslims, in both Australia and the UK, and while I might, perhaps, characterize one as obsessed with football, and another as obsessed with her career (although neither likely fit the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of obsession), I cannot recall any of them discussing or raising the subject of minority rights in conversation - which is rather unexpected behaviour for someone who is alleged to be 'obsessed' with a subject.

Is the world in which you live in even in this solar system?

We've all asked ourselves this about your world for a long time.

 

[metacristi]

Do you have any examples of countries where the first part IS true?

I know a number of Muslims, in both Australia and the UK, and while I might, perhaps, characterize one as obsessed with football, and another as obsessed with her career (although neither likely fit the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of obsession), I cannot recall any of them discussing or raising the subject of minority rights in conversation - which is rather unexpected behaviour for someone who is alleged to be 'obsessed' with a subject.

Is the world in which you live in even in this solar system?

I'm afraid we all live in the same 'progressive' 'bubble' world. But of course the 'progressive' part here has surprisingly little in common with Reason, being far from the Enlightenment acceptation of the term. Happily the 'bubble' is instable and prone to 'burst', indeed if the only rational thing in front of religious enormities like these is to try to find ad infinitum non religious causes for the violent and discriminatory behaviour of so many muslims (or else you are a 'fascist') there is no long future for it...I only hope that we can return toward rationality before either some ideologies of the 'victims of European colonialism', uncritically tolerated today (islam being in pole position here), and / or the extreme right could create huge detours in History.

 

[Jokodo]

Do you have any examples of countries where the first part IS true?

I know a number of Muslims, in both Australia and the UK, and while I might, perhaps, characterize one as obsessed with football, and another as obsessed with her career (although neither likely fit the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of obsession), I cannot recall any of them discussing or raising the subject of minority rights in conversation - which is rather unexpected behaviour for someone who is alleged to be 'obsessed' with a subject.

Is the world in which you live in even in this solar system?

I'm afraid we all live in the same 'progressive' 'bubble' world. But of course the 'progressive' part here has surprisingly little in common with Reason, being far from the Enlightenment acceptation of the term. Happily the 'bubble' is instable and prone to 'burst', indeed if the only rational thing in front of religious enormities like these is to try to find ad infinitum non religious causes for the violent and discriminatory behaviour of so many muslims (or else you are a 'fascist') there is no long future for it...I only hope that we can return toward rationality before either some ideologies of the 'victims of European colonialism', uncritically tolerated today (islam being in pole position here), and / or the extreme right could create huge detours in History.

Is that supposed to be any kind of response to the observational fact that what your kind claims about Muslims sui generis doesn't seem to hold of any individual Muslim anyone of us has ever met?

 

[angelo]

I'm afraid we all live in the same 'progressive' 'bubble' world. But of course the 'progressive' part here has surprisingly little in common with Reason, being far from the Enlightenment acceptation of the term. Happily the 'bubble' is instable and prone to 'burst', indeed if the only rational thing in front of religious enormities like these is to try to find ad infinitum non religious causes for the violent and discriminatory behaviour of so many muslims (or else you are a 'fascist') there is no long future for it...I only hope that we can return toward rationality before either some ideologies of the 'victims of European colonialism', uncritically tolerated today (islam being in pole position here), and / or the extreme right could create huge detours in History.

Is that supposed to be any kind of response to the observational fact that what your kind claims about Muslims sui generis doesn't seem to hold of any individual Muslim anyone of us has ever met?

Anyone of us have ever met? Excise me, but I've met many, perhaps hundreds in my last life as a food wholesaler sales representative.
I was calling on Arab speaking retail store owners. Besides the fact that more than a few skipped town without paying their bills for my goods, mostly 5-10 kilo bags of all purpose flour, this period was during 9/11. And the Iraq war of the second Bush era. For the 9/11 atrocity, all blame was on a Jewish conspiracy. To a tee each and every Arab speaking store owner was anti American and it's allies, or the coalition of the willing. Somewhat understandable considering the circumstances. Therefore all thought Sadam Hussain was a hero, and defender of Islam.
So, don't preach to me about not meeting any moderate or otherwise followers of the perhaps bloodiest terrorist in history Muhammad!

 

[Jokodo]

I'm afraid we all live in the same 'progressive' 'bubble' world. But of course the 'progressive' part here has surprisingly little in common with Reason, being far from the Enlightenment acceptation of the term. Happily the 'bubble' is instable and prone to 'burst', indeed if the only rational thing in front of religious enormities like these is to try to find ad infinitum non religious causes for the violent and discriminatory behaviour of so many muslims (or else you are a 'fascist') there is no long future for it...I only hope that we can return toward rationality before either some ideologies of the 'victims of European colonialism', uncritically tolerated today (islam being in pole position here), and / or the extreme right could create huge detours in History.

Is that supposed to be any kind of response to the observational fact that what your kind claims about Muslims sui generis doesn't seem to hold of any individual Muslim anyone of us has ever met?

Anyone of us have ever met? Excise me, but I've met many, perhaps hundreds in my last life as a food wholesaler sales representative.
I was calling on Arab speaking retail store owners. Besides the fact that more than a few skipped town without paying their bills for my goods, mostly 5-10 kilo bags of all purpose flour, this period was during 9/11. And the Iraq war of the second Bush era. For the 9/11 atrocity, all blame was on a Jewish conspiracy. To a tee each and every Arab speaking store owner was anti American and it's allies, or the coalition of the willing. Somewhat understandable considering the circumstances. Therefore all thought Sadam Hussain was a hero, and defender of Islam.
So, don't preach to me about not meeting any moderate or otherwise followers of the perhaps bloodiest terrorist in history Muhammad!

We were talking about repoman's meme and Muslims "obsessing over minority rights". None of your anecdotes is remotely relevant to the question of minority rights.

(Also this reeks of heavy confirmation bias. How many of those costumers did you even have extended political discussions with, a handful maybe? But you conclude without batting an eye that "[t]o a tee each and every Arab speaking store owner" out of perhaps hundreds shared the same views? How rational is that?)