Europe submits voluntarily

[barbos]

Because cities are not real countries.

- - - Updated - - -

Syrian muslims?

I haven't talked with them in depth, and I don't tend to talk about religion with people when they don't bring it up, but I have no reason to believe not. For what it's worth, they did have an Iftar special deal on offer during Ramadan.

Assuming they ARE muslims. what does it prove/illustrate?

It shows that Derec's contention that "all those European beers, wines and spirits might be a thing of the past by the end of the century, unless Europeans do something about it" remains hyperbolic nonsense even if if his baseless and hyperbolic demographic predictions were true.

Well, according to most implementations of sharia law alcohol is forbidden. I personally can't care less but it is what it is.

That's irrelevant to what will happen in Europe when most self-identified Muslims don't want to live under those interpretations of Sharia law.

Who cares about most?, all you need is sufficiently large crazy minority with guns.

Of course you can always say that they are not real Muslims. It sure is what ISIS says.

I see you see deficiencies in your argument yourself.

But if the people immigrating into Europe overwhelmingly aren't real Muslims in the first place, the whole point of this thread is kind of moot.

Yeah, they all run to Europe to get drunk, sure.

 

[barbos]

Because cities are not real countries.

Today, on "Inane opinions with your host, Barbos": Singapore not a country, despite having a bigger population than Norway, and 142 other internationally recognized nationstates.

Today on "Inane opinions with your host, dystopian": "Planet Earth can sustain population density of Monaco"
And yes, Vatican is not a country, because city-states are not countries, they are city states.

 

[Jokodo]

Because cities are not real countries.

- - - Updated - - -

Syrian muslims?

I haven't talked with them in depth, and I don't tend to talk about religion with people when they don't bring it up, but I have no reason to believe not. For what it's worth, they did have an Iftar special deal on offer during Ramadan.

Assuming they ARE muslims. what does it prove/illustrate?

It shows that Derec's contention that "all those European beers, wines and spirits might be a thing of the past by the end of the century, unless Europeans do something about it" remains hyperbolic nonsense even if if his baseless and hyperbolic demographic predictions were true.

Well, according to most implementations of sharia law alcohol is forbidden. I personally can't care less but it is what it is.

That's irrelevant to what will happen in Europe when most self-identified Muslims don't want to live under those interpretations of Sharia law.

Who cares about most?, all you need is sufficiently large crazy minority with guns.

Of course you can always say that they are not real Muslims. It sure is what ISIS says.

I see you see deficiencies in your argument yourself.

But if the people immigrating into Europe overwhelmingly aren't real Muslims in the first place, the whole point of this thread is kind of moot.

Yeah, they all run to Europe to get drunk, sure.

A lot of them do indeed run to Europe because they disagree with ISIS' definition of Islam, yes. More of them run away more directly from Assad's carpet bombing, but for them joining ISIS would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

 

[dystopian]

Today on "Inane opinions with your host, dystopian": "Planet Earth can sustain population density of Monaco"

Nobody claimed anything about the earth sustaining a population density of Monaco, so that's a strawman.

And yes, Vatican is not a country, because city-states are not countries, they are city states.

City state is just a description of a certain *kind* of country. Independent city-states are most certainly, by all international agreements and definitions, considered to be countries (with countries being defined as sovereign states). They are recognized as such by the UN and its memberstates. Vatican City is a sovereign state; which qualifies it as a country regardless of your personal disagreement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And Hitler murdered 6 million jews because they did no let him into the art school.
I think they left GB because GB did piss poor job assimilating them.

But these people SAY they became radicalized by watching US and British violence against Muslims, by seeing things like Abu Ghraib.

And of course this violence was massive and real and incredibly immoral.

Why should we dismiss their claims?

No, they become radicalized by watching what the Imams present as what the west did, not what they actually did.

 

[TSwizzle]

The infidels are not surrendering as quickly as some would like;

“This is the so-called developed Europe?” asks Mouti. “It’s supposed to be different to the fucking Arab world.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/syrian-refugees-hungary-camp-cold-hungry

Patience Mohammad.

 

[Jokodo]

Funniest part, the correlation between the people who are most vocal about how the influx of people from the middle East is "destroying European values" and the people who should be happy about it is huge.

For example, approval ratings for gay marriage are around 65%+ in Germany, and there's even a slight majority for it among the voters of the Christian Democrats, the party most consistently preventing it. It's essentially a losing battle unless a large scale demographic shift happens nowish. One million (rounding up the current estimate of 800,000 for Germany for this year) of conservative Muslim immigrants isn't even going to cut it, but you might be lucky with 10,000,000, if you naturalise all of them immediately.

10,000,000 still isn't enough to turn Germany into a Muslim country, but it might be enough to delay public opinion on gay marriage from gaining enough of a margin that you have to act on it for another couple of years. You guys should be positively happy about every single immigrant from a conservative environment. If you aren't, it only shows that the only European value you're defending is Europe as a monolithic, mono-religious block.

In which case, you aren't really any better than ISIS or the Saudi ruling family.

 

[JonA]

To say that there are not enough Muslims in Europe to out-vote or overrun the native, mostly-liberal population is to miss the point of this thread's author, which is that the number of Muslims does not matter because many in Europe are willingly embracing or excusing the tenets of Islamic extremism.

You have plenty of conservative loons who just hate everything that's different than them, but there is an increasing number of liberal intellectuals who are arguing precisely the points being argued by this thread's author and those in his/her camp. It isn't about 'the other' or any other pop-sociology, buzzword nonsense; it is about a genuine concern that centuries of struggles to establish the liberal democracies that make the West the great place to live that it is may be undone by leeway given to the religious, conservative extremism of mainstream Islam in the name of multiculturalism.

The OP is correct to point out that many liberal academics seem to overlook the 'primitive', misogynistic, etc. nature of Islam while regularly attacking similar behavior and beliefs in more mainstream religions.

And to scold: hurling insults will solve nothing, nor will the endless emoting that seems to have blanketed this discussion in meaninglessness. Facts alone.

So let's deal with some facts! Who wants to start?

 

[Jokodo]

To say that there are not enough Muslims in Europe to out-vote or overrun the native, mostly-liberal population is to miss the point of this thread's author, which is that the number of Muslims does not matter because many in Europe are willingly embracing or excusing the tenets of Islamic extremism.

You have plenty of conservative loons who just hate everything that's different than them, but there is an increasing number of liberal intellectuals who are arguing precisely the points being argued by this thread's author and those in his/her camp. It isn't about 'the other' or any other pop-sociology, buzzword nonsense; it is about a genuine concern that centuries of struggles to establish the liberal democracies that make the West the great place to live that it is may be undone by leeway given to the religious, conservative extremism of mainstream Islam in the name of multiculturalism.

The OP is correct to point out that many liberal academics seem to overlook the 'primitive', misogynistic, etc. nature of Islam while regularly attacking similar behavior and beliefs in more mainstream religions.

And to scold: hurling insults will solve nothing, nor will the endless emoting that seems to have blanketed this discussion in meaninglessness. Facts alone.

So let's deal with some facts! Who wants to start?

The ones most concerned about being "overrun" by Muslims tend to be the ones who'd rather see the achievements that have made the West a great place to live undone. That's a fact, and the author of the thread, if you care to look up his posting history, is a case in point.

What other facts were you thinking about?

 

[JonA]

I think that countries in general, not just Western ones, need a more sensible system for dealing with refugees. Allowing people to endlessly flee troubled situations doesn't fix problems; if anything it makes them worse.

One solution might be to limit the number of years refugees can stay in host countries to, let's say, five years, which would apply to the initial refugee and any of their descendents. After the five year period is up, back they go.

The benefit of such an approach would be the motivation for people to resolve problems within their native countries while giving them, collectively, a peaceful environment in which to do so.

Win-win.

The countries on Earth that have managed to build successful societies not mired in endless wars cannot support all the world's population; the current system that assumes they can is simply unworkable.

 

[bilby]

The other night Jerry Brown was on TV discussing our California Draught. We have 38 million people here and have had draught conditions now for about six years. The word Jerry strayed to and kept using when questioned about..."What if the draught is here to stay?" was that our regimens related to water will have to become more sophisticated and elegant. My first thought was he was dodging the issure, however it should be clear to us that if we survive to become more sophisticated things that are problems today to a disorganized dissonant society will indeed become less threatening with increased understanding of what we MUST DO TO SURVIVE. We collectively are gaining in the knowledge department and crude environmental disruptions in the name of energy and or supply, will indeed have to be more elegant and restrained.

I feel that problems with overpopulation are nowhere near the scope of problems we seem to have understanding each others human needs. This does not have to be a tryranny of bureaucratic dictations but rather the dictates of common sense and consensus. It really is just a matter of getting everybody enough of what they need to survive, and not a matter of good and evil as the Neo Nazis would make it.

Is California Draught a beer? If so, I hope the brewery has an independent water supply, because I understand the state is currently in drought.

Come on guy it was after midnight when I made this post. It makes a point spelling aside....one I feel you will probably not ever understand in your lifetime.

The only point it really makes is that you would rather talk about something unrelated to the topic.

Congratulations on finding a way to shoehorn your local problem into a thread that is about an unrelated problem in a totally different part of the world. But I would suggest that if you think analogies to what is happening in the USA are always relevant, then you probably don't have a sufficiently broad worldview to make a meaningful contribution.

 

[Ford]

To say that there are not enough Muslims in Europe to out-vote or overrun the native, mostly-liberal population is to miss the point of this thread's author, which is that the number of Muslims does not matter because many in Europe are willingly embracing or excusing the tenets of Islamic extremism.

You have plenty of conservative loons who just hate everything that's different than them, but there is an increasing number of liberal intellectuals who are arguing precisely the points being argued by this thread's author and those in his/her camp. It isn't about 'the other' or any other pop-sociology, buzzword nonsense; it is about a genuine concern that centuries of struggles to establish the liberal democracies that make the West the great place to live that it is may be undone by leeway given to the religious, conservative extremism of mainstream Islam in the name of multiculturalism.

The OP is correct to point out that many liberal academics seem to overlook the 'primitive', misogynistic, etc. nature of Islam while regularly attacking similar behavior and beliefs in more mainstream religions.

And to scold: hurling insults will solve nothing, nor will the endless emoting that seems to have blanketed this discussion in meaninglessness. Facts alone.

So let's deal with some facts! Who wants to start?

Yes, please, let's start.

Please back up your claim that "many in Europe are willingly embracing or excusing the tenets of Islamic extremism." How many? Is there polling data to indicate that a large percentage of the non-Muslim population of Europe is embracing or excusing the tenets of Islamic extremism? It should go without saying that in order to "embrace Islamic extremism," one would have to convert to Islam in the first place.

Do you have numbers which indicate a large number of Europeans converting to not just Islam, but "extreme" Islam? Please provide a link if you can.


Next up:

there is an increasing number of liberal intellectuals who are arguing precisely the points being argued by this thread's author and those in his/her camp.

Great! Another solid claim. Okay, who are these liberal intellectuals, how many are there, and can you name names and/or link to proof that they argue these points?


I await such facts.


When you get done with that, then perhaps you can provide clarification on this statement:

it is about a genuine concern that centuries of struggles to establish the liberal democracies that make the West the great place to live that it is may be undone by leeway given to the religious, conservative extremism of mainstream Islam in the name of multiculturalism.

That bold part is a bit baffling, as you seem to be saying that mainstream Islam is extremist Islam. Is that what you're saying? Thanks in advance.

 

[JonA]

The ones most concerned about being "overrun" by Muslims tend to be the ones who'd rather see the achievements that have made the West a great place to live undone.

Nonsense. Politically correct multiculturalism has usurped enlightened philosophy with the foolish notion that everyone's opinion counts. But the opinions of the 40% of British Muslims who want to see Britain enact Saudi-Arabia-style Sharia deserve no consideration.

 

[atrib]

They are not like us.

They don't eat the same food. They don't have the same religious views. They have different ideas about how many children to have. They compete with us for jobs. Their cooking smells are offensive. Their kids are often poorly educated, and slow down the teaching process in our schools. They don't share our interests - they support different sporting teams, and even different sports than we do. Their political views are different to ours - and frankly, are often quite offensive. They dress differently to us. I wouldn't want my sister to marry one of them.

But that's enough about my next door neighbours.

Now remind me again how the country would be so different if a few more percent of the population were immigrants?

Face it - you don't know (or have much in common with) most of the people born in your country. Why do you care where people you don't know were born?

Nobody is asking you to befriend a refugee. Just to share your country with him. Add him to the list of the other tens of millions of people in your country who you don't really know or care about. It changes nothing in your life - but it might save his.

To be fair, you forgot the following:

They hate homosexuals, they tend to be anti-Semitic, a significant portion of them wish to impose Islam on all of society and for the state to be governed by Islam, they are misogynistic, and they wish to insulate their children from secular education, and they are against freedom of speech, thought and expression.

I live in the deep South. Many Christians who live in the South tend to hold similar opinions on many of the same subjects. Should we force them to leave the country just because they do not conform to your vision of what an ideal population should think?

 

[Jokodo]

The ones most concerned about being "overrun" by Muslims tend to be the ones who'd rather see the achievements that have made the West a great place to live undone.

Nonsense. Politically correct multiculturalism has usurped enlightened philosophy with the foolish notion that everyone's opinion counts. But the opinions of the 40% of British Muslims who want to see Britain enact Saudi-Arabia-style Sharia deserve no consideration.

I'm failing to parse the meaning of your would-be contribution.

But let's try.

40% of British Muslims (even if true - as of now, this remains an unsourced claim) means 1.2% of the populace of Britain.

I'm pretty sure there is a similar number of people in Britain who think it's it would have been better if Britain had lost WWII, because Hitler was right. There might even be a larger number of active Maoists in Britain.

So, even if your numbers are correct (and you've presented no reason to believe they are - talking about facts), that's not really a reason for concern.

 

[Jokodo]

The ones most concerned about being "overrun" by Muslims tend to be the ones who'd rather see the achievements that have made the West a great place to live undone.

Nonsense. Politically correct multiculturalism has usurped enlightened philosophy with the foolish notion that everyone's opinion counts. But the opinions of the 40% of British Muslims who want to see Britain enact Saudi-Arabia-style Sharia deserve no consideration.

Do you know one single liberal or left-wing European who would say something along the lines of "I'm absolutely for gay marriage/equal rights for women/whatever other enlightenment value you had in mind, but let's not push it just now because that might offend Muslims"? I don't and most of the people I converse with are left-wing Europeans. If you don't you don't have a point.

 

[laughing dog]

To say that there are not enough Muslims in Europe to out-vote or overrun the native, mostly-liberal population is to miss the point of this thread's author, which is that the number of Muslims does not matter because many in Europe are willingly embracing or excusing the tenets of Islamic extremism.

How "many" is "many"? There does not appear to be a rush in Europe to embrace or excuse Islamic extremism to this observer. Do you have any actual facts to support your claim? If so, please produce them.

 

[Bomb#20]

Assuming they ARE muslims. what does it prove/illustrate?

It shows that Derec's contention that "all those European beers, wines and spirits might be a thing of the past by the end of the century, unless Europeans do something about it" remains hyperbolic nonsense even if if his baseless and hyperbolic demographic predictions were true.

In other news, I know a Catholic who had an abortion. This shows that the fear of a future Catholic majority in America banning abortion is hyperbolic nonsense even if a demographic prediction of a future Catholic majority is true.

Well, according to most implementations of sharia law alcohol is forbidden. I personally can't care less but it is what it is.

That's irrelevant to what will happen in Europe when most self-identified Muslims don't want to live under those interpretations of Sharia law.

Of course you can always say that they are not real Muslims. It sure is what ISIS says. But if the people immigrating into Europe overwhelmingly aren't real Muslims in the first place, the whole point of this thread is kind of moot.

In other news, most Catholics in America use birth control. Of course you can always say that they are not real Catholics. It's surely what emeritus Ratzinger says. But if a future majority aren't real Catholics in the first place, the whole point of fearing they'll ban abortion is kind of moot.

Funniest part, the correlation between the people who are most vocal about how the influx of people from the middle East is "destroying European values" and the people who should be happy about it is huge.

For example, approval ratings for gay marriage are around 65%+ in Germany, and there's even a slight majority for it among the voters of the Christian Democrats, the party most consistently preventing it.

In other news, we can safely predict that a future majority of beer-drinking Muslims won't elect representatives who'll ban alcohol, because elected representatives in a political party don't prevent practices favored by a majority of their party's supporters.

10,000,000 still isn't enough to turn Germany into a Muslim country, but it might be enough to delay public opinion on gay marriage from gaining enough of a margin that you have to act on it for another couple of years. You guys should be positively happy about every single immigrant from a conservative environment.

In other news, the correlation between people who speak English fluently and the people who are monolingual is huge. Therefore if you're going to go on living in Austria you should positively start taking German classes.

If you aren't, it only shows that the only European value you're defending is Europe as a monolithic, mono-religious block.

In which case, you aren't really any better than ISIS or the Saudi ruling family.

Yes, it only shows that; or else it only shows that your current sequence of arguments is not up to your usual standards for logic.

 

[barbos]

Nonsense. Politically correct multiculturalism has usurped enlightened philosophy with the foolish notion that everyone's opinion counts. But the opinions of the 40% of British Muslims who want to see Britain enact Saudi-Arabia-style Sharia deserve no consideration.

I'm failing to parse the meaning of your would-be contribution.

But let's try.

40% of British Muslims (even if true - as of now, this remains an unsourced claim) means 1.2% of the populace of Britain.

I'm pretty sure there is a similar number of people in Britain who think it's it would have been better if Britain had lost WWII, because Hitler was right. There might even be a larger number of active Maoists in Britain.

So, even if your numbers are correct (and you've presented no reason to believe they are - talking about facts), that's not really a reason for concern.

British Hitler supporters are not well organized and self-perpetuating bunch of people like muslims, they are appear sporadically like genetic mutations and there is nothing you can do about it. Islam is an ideology which in its mainstream mode is completely alien to Europian values. And the funny part is, radical (and not so radical)l islam expansion into Europe actually breeds nazies.

 

[Jokodo]

It shows that Derec's contention that "all those European beers, wines and spirits might be a thing of the past by the end of the century, unless Europeans do something about it" remains hyperbolic nonsense even if if his baseless and hyperbolic demographic predictions were true.

In other news, I know a Catholic who had an abortion. This shows that the fear of a future Catholic majority in America banning abortion is hyperbolic nonsense even if a demographic prediction of a future Catholic majority is true.

Well, according to most implementations of sharia law alcohol is forbidden. I personally can't care less but it is what it is.

That's irrelevant to what will happen in Europe when most self-identified Muslims don't want to live under those interpretations of Sharia law.

Of course you can always say that they are not real Muslims. It sure is what ISIS says. But if the people immigrating into Europe overwhelmingly aren't real Muslims in the first place, the whole point of this thread is kind of moot.

In other news, most Catholics in America use birth control. Of course you can always say that they are not real Catholics. It's surely what emeritus Ratzinger says. But if a future majority aren't real Catholics in the first place, the whole point of fearing they'll ban abortion is kind of moot.

Funniest part, the correlation between the people who are most vocal about how the influx of people from the middle East is "destroying European values" and the people who should be happy about it is huge.

For example, approval ratings for gay marriage are around 65%+ in Germany, and there's even a slight majority for it among the voters of the Christian Democrats, the party most consistently preventing it.

In other news, we can safely predict that a future majority of beer-drinking Muslims won't elect representatives who'll ban alcohol, because elected representatives in a political party don't prevent practices favored by a majority of their party's supporters.

10,000,000 still isn't enough to turn Germany into a Muslim country, but it might be enough to delay public opinion on gay marriage from gaining enough of a margin that you have to act on it for another couple of years. You guys should be positively happy about every single immigrant from a conservative environment.

In other news, the correlation between people who speak English fluently and the people who are monolingual is huge. Therefore if you're going to go on living in Austria you should positively start taking German classes.

If you aren't, it only shows that the only European value you're defending is Europe as a monolithic, mono-religious block.

In which case, you aren't really any better than ISIS or the Saudi ruling family.

Yes, it only shows that; or else it only shows that your current sequence of arguments is not up to your usual standards for logic.

Oh yeah, letting the Irish in means the end to the American way of life.

How did that one work out again? I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here.