Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo

GuanYin

Wibbs wrote:

Again with the US comparisons. If as you say that most Americans believe in the literal word of the Bible, how do you explain America itself.

Are you putting words in someones mouth there?

MOST Americans believe in the literal bible? I think not.

Hardly the most "Christian" of countries.

Actually, technically you could argue that it is the most christian country. It has the largest christian population (twice the next highest) and the highest grossing christian movement and population.

Mind you you could also argue that its China, who have the fastest growing christian population seen in the last 50 years anywhere. But you'd not really think of China as a christian country - go figure.

Prayer banned in schools,

Legally challenged quite often. Aside from which, "prayer" isn't a soley christian phenomenon.

Aside from which, you could argue that this has been a good thing for christianity in the US. As a dominant religion, it keeps the young questioning minds away from other theological ideas and keeps the status quo.

No wonder the christian right have such poor regard for the interweb.

Gay rights,

Exist begrudgingly in many states and are being reduced in some.

Womens rights, freedom of speech,

Can you show me which christian tenants oppose these ideologies?

one of the most scientific countries on the planet(they went to the moon you know),

Dominated by european scientists and european investors lured by the large economic country.

US science has actively fought proposed restriction by the US administration. Issues include Global Warming, Stem Cells, freedom to publish, biological weapon development, censorship, red tape restrictions on research, political pressure in key appointments, the list goes on.

with a mostly laudable constitution the envy of many a land.

Which many believe is only held together by the US's obsession with owning guns. Many many groups in the US would like to hack the constitution to pieces but as any challenge to the US constitutional amendments would make the 2nd amendment vunerable and neither the Democrats or republicans want to be associated with that, its a no-goer in US politics.

Hmmmm Ok. Now look at the Islamic countries, Now you compare and contrast and see the point I'm making. Silly comparison, non?

Don't see how. Which islamic countries? moderate, conservative? They come in many flavours.

There are many in the US who would welcome a reduction in freedom - we see it with homeland security and its practice and policy. HS can intercept anyone leaving a plane in the US before the get to US customs. One Irish national or middle eastern ethnic background was held for several days in this manner. No phone call, no lawyer, noone informing the family who were simply told by US customs that "they had no record of [the person] entering the country".


The key difference is how fundamentalist the people in charge are and how far they're willing to go.

homeOwner

lazydaisy wrote:

Also - immigrants in the US do have to assimilate, its part of the agreement. That is why so many Irish-Americans are WASPY, as are many Hispanics and Asian_Americans.

What? First of all how does assimulating into the US result in people being "waspy"? Being "waspy" does not describe the default american. Why are you holding this up as a yardstick of assimilation? I take it you hail from the East coast of the US. This does not make up the majority of americans by any stretch of the imagination.

Secondly, explain how a dark-skinned, spanish speaking as a first language, probably low-incomed and most likely catholic hispanic immigrant becomes identical to a white, anglo-saxon protestant? In what way exactly are you talking about?

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

There is certainly more scope inherent in Islam for military action than in almost all other religions. It was started and spread by military action for a start.

So was Christianity, which spread on the heals of the Roman Empire ...

Wibbs wrote:

The fact is its not and neither are any of the other faiths to nearly the same extent as Islam.

I ask you again, what are you basing that on? How many wars where faught in Europe based on Christian conflict?

Wibbs wrote:

Regardless of this or any other argument, stoning is considered among the most painful ways to die imaginable.

Not if it is done to Islamic teaching. Firstly a "crowd" doesn't pelt a person with stones for half an hour under Islamic law.

I am not saying I agree with it. I don't. But I fail to see the difference between a stoning a person to death and pumping 700 volts of electricity through them.

Wibbs wrote:

Did I say I agree with the death penalty?

Nope, but you are using it as a reason Islam is bad, while ignoring the fact that Christians execute people in equally brutal fashion.

Wibbs wrote:

Many Christian groups in America are precisely the ones campaigning against the death penalty

And many Muslims campaign against stoning ... does that mean Muslims are good now?

Wibbs wrote:

What's your problem with American anyway. It seems to be your catchall for Christian society.

American has had a huge huge increase in religious fundamentalism in the last 30 years. Yet we don't care, at least we don't even entertain the idea of limiting this infulence into our country. Which is good, we shouldn't limit access to our country because other countries are more conservative or fundamentalist that our.

Yet that is exactly what you are calling for in relation to Muslim countries, whcih have also experienced a rise in religious fundamentalism in the last 30 years.

So why are you scared of Muslim influence in Ireland, but seemingly not bothered about American Christian influence. Why are Muslims going to change our laws and culture with their oppressive and intolerant attitudes to women, but Americans aren't with their oppressive and intolerant attitudes.

Isn't there a change that your views are based more on the stereotypical idea of the Muslim as "fundamentalist nut case" that is presented by the post 9/11 media, but that doesn't necessarily hold to reality

Wibbs wrote:

I seem to remember the Jesus bloke stopping a stoning for adultery.

True, but I seem to remember it was Jews doing the stoning (rather than Muslims since they didn't exist). Should we stop Jews entering the country and influencing our society?

Wibbs wrote:

Indeed, fair play to them. I notice it's the Christian nutters in the US that are putting pressure on these countries to allow women the vote.

Actually they are putting pressure on these countries to convert to Christianity, and then allow women to vote ... kinda different ... as Anna Colter said "We should kill all their leaders and convert them all to Christianity" ... kind of a round-about way of doing it, but you have to commend the directness

Wibbs wrote:

Did Jesus, Buddha, Krishna whoever instruct him to do so?

He did it because he was taught by his religion that being gay is a mortal sin

Wibbs wrote:

Good example anyway, now look at the record of human rights abuse under Islamic rule.

What as opposed to the human rights records of Christian countries like the USA, South Africa, Argentina ... etc etc ..

Wibbs wrote:

If they consider themselves Muslims they do, I'm afraid. The Quran and Hadeeth are quite clear on veiling.

I am not following your point... the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality ... the Catholic church is quite clear on going to mass and contraception ... all religions are quite clear on what you have to do to be a part of it, yet religious people, including Muslims, let these things slide all the time .. I already linked to a photo of a (quite hot) Muslim woman wearing a short skirt and low cut top in Kuwait

Wibbs wrote:

Ever hear of societal pressure?

Like the social pressure not to marry a Protestant if you are Catholic .. the socail pressure to hide you are gay .. the socail pressure not to get a divorse .. the social pressure to only have kids in marriage .. nope never heard of it

Wibbs wrote:

The IRA and their ilk were condemned from every pulpit in the land.

Firstly, no they weren't ...

Secondly every terrorist campaign carried out by Muslim fundamentalists has been condemned by the Muslim community in the West and Middle East.

Saudi Arabia condemned the 9/11 attacks even though they are probably the most Muslim of countries in the world and the attackers were from that country.

Wibbs wrote:

Where do most of the Islamic terrorists get their training? Religious schools. See the diff yet?

Islamic terrorist don't get military training in religious schools, they get training to hate westerners, just like IRA members got "training" to hate Protestants from sunday mass

Wibbs wrote:

If you're ever on a plane and someone shouts "Allah wu Akbar", see how quick your cheeks clench. I don't think someone shouting "praise the lord" will have a tenth of the effect.

I think if I was on a bus in Dublin and someone shouted "Death to the Pope" it would have the same effect ...

Wibbs wrote:

This military jihad has a long history.

Firstly the inital Arab wars that spread the Islamic empires were done for power and wealth rather than to spread the good word. In fact conversion was fround upon because, as you pointed out, Muslims could not tax other Muslims so it was in the interest of the wealthy and powerful to keep people non-Muslim so they could be taxed.

Secondly Christianity has a long long long history of religious wars to "spread the faith" .. ever heard of the Crusades?

GuanYin

homeOwner wrote:

What? First of all how does assimulating into the US result in people being "waspy"? Being "waspy" does not describe the default american. Why are you holding this up as a yardstick of assimilation? I take it you hail from the East coast of the US. This does not make up the majority of americans by any stretch of the imagination.

Secondly, explain how a dark-skinned, spanish speaking as a first language, probably low-incomed and most likely catholic hispanic immigrant becomes identical to a white, anglo-saxon protestant? In what way exactly are you talking about?

Agreed, you know that there are a few US states where *SHOCK* english is not the first language.

fly_agaric

Do you think xenophobia is something that only "caucasian" people suffer from?

Wicknight wrote:

Nope, and I would love to know where you got that idea from ...

From the wonderful world of your posts, that's where! Where Irish racists are beating up nigerians and I'd be a person who would like to see them get away with it.

Yes but the position amount anti-immigration people here seems to be that being careful means "only non-muslims" ... can you not see the problem in that?

Yes. How did "being careful" about immigration from muslim countries (especially the ones where Islamic extremism has most of a foothold) become a blanket ban on all muslim immigration? No matter what I write you make what you want of it! I cite your favorite example of a state ruled by a militarist Christian junta - the US - as a country that is somewhat more "careful" about muslim immigration from certain countries for obvious reasons!

You yourself have gone to great pains to explain that Muslim people are in fact too different from us to be able to live and work in Ireland without, naturally, causing problems.

You spin and twist my words again. Anger is affecting your ability to read. For the last time, if we have too much and too rapid immigration of people who are too different we will have problems, IMO. Why don't you just post "YOU ARE TEH RACIST BIGOT". It would save so much time and effort on both our parts and I promise I won't report it as a personal insult.

But as I have said about 5 times if you don't know the person you have no idea what they are like or what their culture is like. Their culture has no effect on you. So why object to them going about their business?

You didn't say it to me AFAICR. I never, at any point, objected to anyone going about their business as long as they don't break the laws of the country. Unless by "business" you mean their freedom to cross borders at will with no limits? As I already said, immigration in Ireland has not reached the state where the culture of any group of immigrants has an effect on society as a whole.

I work with both Eastern European and Muslim (from Britian and Middle East) people at work. Never found that. They are equally different.

Well, if thats what you find - fair enough. Since you are obviously a much more tolerant and open-minded person than me, a higher class of human say, you must be right.

Actually I am very confused .. you seem to be saying the same thing as Grubber and Wibbs (the Muslims will lead to trouble and should not be let in), yet you keep retreating back behind the argument "but its not me, its just human nature, I have nothing against them, but some people do and that natural, so its best we limit how many come in"

At least Wibbs and Grubber stand behind their arguments.

I never retreated behind anything. I called it as I see it. You just twist my words, and the words of the other not-so-right-on posters on this thread. You read into them what you want, and distort, so that we become strawman demons that you can turn your self-righteous anti-racist invective on! What do you want me to say? That I hate all muslims? That I want to see them, and maybe all other immigrants deported? Tell me, what words do you want to put in my mouth.

Is xenophobia something that is deep in human nature or not? Am I wrong?

As to me personally: Over the past year or two I have had these feeling of "disconnection" while walking around Dublin, seeking all the people from different parts of the world, listening to their languages. I've lived there all my life so far, which is probably part of the problem. Perhaps, if I was more of a traveller, I'd be excited by it. The place reminds me of London at times very much now. I blinked - and the city has changed beyond all measure. I'm not sure if I belong here anymore. It is a disorienting kind of feeling, but I can honestly say it's never made me hate anyone I haven't met or want to see people who are in this country discriminated against or deported because they dress differently, have a different skin colour, practice a different religion. Is this (my feelings) xenophobia? I think it is.

I'm sure you'll find a suitable way to mock what I wrote above as the ramblings of a "less-evolved" human.
You can think what you like about me, twist my words and arguments, whatever gets you off...

Wicknight wrote:

As much as it can sustain ... and we won't know that till we do it. predicting how much our culture can tolerate Muslims is nonsense.

Pretty evasive answer. I may as well copy you and read my own meanings into things. I see from the second bit that your answer to my question is "let the market decide" - or - "we'll worry about it tomorrow for tomorrow is another day". And we complain about our politicans for not being able to see past the next election!

Wicknight wrote:

LOL ... are you sure you aren't Grubber on a different nick? So many stereotypes in just one sentence, from bleeding heart liberals all living in Dublin South, to scrounging asylum seekers, to refugee children shouldn't be mixed with "Irish" children .. where to begin ...

Where to begin with that steaming pile! If you think I'm Grubber, why don't you report that instead of moaning about it. I'm sure it must be against some rule or other. Most boards don't like people using multiple id's.
Nothing about "scrounging" asylum seekers in what I wrote. My characterisation of the wealthy parts of D. South on issues of refugees is stereotypical of course but mostly correct - even if every single person living there is not a "bleeding heart liberal" as you put it.
I never made any allusions to their opinions on anything other than asylum seekers and refugees. I think a constituency there was the only one in the entire state to reject the citizenship referendum a few years back! That has to count for something.

Oh, but funnily enough, didn't a group of people also fight tooth and nail to prevent accomodation for asylum seekers being established somewhere there (I can't remember and can't dig it up of the net) a few years back? May affect property values? I think the government abandoned the idea in the end. As I said - it would make a cat laugh.

As for the schooling thing - there was something in the media recently about schools in some parts of Dublin not getting enough resourses for teaching English to children of immigrants. Also cultural issues to do with conflict between parents' and teachers' views on chastisement of their kids - (giving a beating - may run to child abuse here, but is common enough in African and Asian countries). This was what I had in mind. I doubt the constituents in some of the wealthier areas of Dublin would like to see such things happening in their local primary schools - and I'm sure they never will, no matter how much they profess to love asylum seekers. You see, "they" (oops, I'm stereotyping again) may love the fact that asylum seekers are from a different country - but then they dislike the fact that the asylum seekers are by definition, very poor. Interesting tension there IMO.

edit: Just say this

Wicknight wrote:

Islamic terrorist don't get military training in religious schools, they get training to hate westerners, just like IRA members got "training" to hate Protestants from sunday mass

??Never heard of this. Seriously - does it happen? Do they teach you about the "evils" of protestants at mass? I've never even heard them mentioned - full stop - but then I never went to mass up the north. Anything I know about protestant worship and how it differs from catholic I learned in religion class in secondary school while I was awake and not dozing off.

Wicknight wrote:

I am not saying I agree with it. I don't. But I fail to see the difference between a stoning a person to death and pumping 700 volts of electricity through them.

Which way would you rather go? I pick the riding the lightning. Over much, much quicker, I'd say.
Would you really like to go out buried in dirt with a bunch of people hurling insults and stones at your head. You could be there a long, long time if their aim is crappy and the stones are big enough to hurt really bad but not so large that they kill you straight away.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Yes. How did "being careful" about immigration from muslim countries (especially the ones where Islamic extremism has most of a foothold) become a blanket ban on all muslim immigration?

God if you were doing anymore dancing around what you are saying you would be doing a fox trot

Please define "being careful" .. and please explain how simply "being carefull" relates to your later remake that "when the country goes to sh1t" from all the immigrants

fly_agaric wrote:

we have too much and too rapid immigration of people who are too different we will have problems

And ... ? Is that a reason to restrict immigration to non-Muslims?

Please clarify what your suggestion to this "problem" is, so I don't "twist" your words again ... or are you just throwing this out there ...

fly_agaric wrote:

I never, at any point, objected to anyone going about their business as long as they don't break the laws of the country.

So what "problems" are going to be caused based on the above post? You don't object to them being here and doing their thing, but them being here will cause problems, and that is a reason to object to them being here?

Am I following that correctly?

fly_agaric wrote:

Since you are obviously a much more tolerant and open-minded person than me, a higher class of human say, you must be right.

My point was the only person with a major cultural problem fitting in in my work place was from Mayo. Should we restrict (or "be careful") people coming from Mayo to work in Dublin?

fly_agaric wrote:

Is xenophobia something that is deep in human nature or not? Am I wrong?

And ... ? Are you just point that out? Racism, violence, bigotry, fear, suspicion these are all part of human nature. Do we organise public social policy based on these irrational fears?

fly_agaric wrote:

Is this (my feelings) xenophobia? I think it is.

Is your feeling a justification to restrict immigration into Ireland so it doesn't cause problems?

fly_agaric wrote:

Pretty evasive answer.

My anwser is that that question cannot be answered in a metric fashon because the situation of when Ireland cannot sustain any more immigration cannot be predicted. But my guess would be never, because immigration doesn't work like that. These things have a natural way of balancing out. Of course most anti-immigration people won't accept that answer because they see the "problems" of immigration happening a lot sooner than I do. To some immigration has gone to far if you have a Arabic sign in a shop window, or a Muslim in the Dail.

Whats your answer?

fly_agaric wrote:

oh, but funnily enough, didn't a group of people also fight tooth and nail to prevent accomodation for asylum seekers being established somewhere there (I can't remember and can't dig it up of the net) a few years back?

And you know these were the same people who voted against the citizenship referendum?? How exactly ...

fly_agaric wrote:

and I'm sure they never will, no matter how much they profess to love asylum seekers.

Another stereotype that is also "correct" ???

fly_agaric wrote:

You see, "they" (oops, I'm stereotyping again) may love the fact that asylum seekers are from a different country - but then they dislike the fact that the asylum seekers are by definition, very poor. Interesting tension there IMO.

Oh my god ... just because you get in there first with a "I'm stereotype again" quib doesn't mean that isn't exactly what you are doing. You might as well start off a sentence with "I'm not racist but..."

That entire rant about "wealthy" D-South people (of which I am not one btw) is nonsense. You stereotype an entire area of people, assume you know they all think and vote alike, then critise them for the views you project onto them, and stand back as if you have some how uncovered a massive hypocracy in the Dublin social system

fly_agaric wrote:

??Never heard of this. Seriously - does it happen?

Yes it did

fly_agaric wrote:

Do they teach you about the "evils" of protestants at mass?

I don't go to mass, but they did to my father, grand father, uncle and aunts. You should try having a catholic father and a protestant mother if you think Catholic Ireland in the early 80s didn't preach about the "evils" of Protestants...

fly_agaric wrote:

I've never even heard them mentioned - full stop - but then I never went to mass up the north.

Up north? Try Kildare ...

fly_agaric wrote:

Anything I know about protestant worship and how it differs from catholic I learned in religion class in secondary school while I was awake and not dozing off.

Good for you

fly_agaric wrote:

Which way would you rather go?

I would rather not be executed if its all the same ...

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

God if you were doing anymore dancing around what you are saying you would be doing a fox trot

You are the leader in this dance. I said exactly what I mean. You look for me to rephrase that in ways you can attack more easily. I don't - then you become angry with me if I don't do that. Look at your joy when you found you could rip into my generalisations about wealthy people living on the southside of Dublin!

Wicknight wrote:

Please define "being careful" .. and please explain how simply "being carefull" relates to your later remake that "when the country goes to sh1t" from all the immigrants

We have to define everything. Even when you know exactly what is meant.

The US has a big list of people who it says are "security risks". After Sept. 11th alot of these are muslims. If the INS and border control people think someone is on this list they don't let them in - even if they have to turn back a plane. It has also become more difficult to get a visa if you are from one of the countries that is on a blacklist - all of which are muslim AFAIK. That is being very "careful", is it not? I'm sure that to you it is an example of unfairness and bigotry however.

It doesn't really relate to the country going to shít because of immigration except in the sense that if we go to an extreme and throw our borders open to all we of course can't control who is here and what they may be doing, so we compromise our security against people like the Islamic nuts - as well as other more general criminal scum. We would be in the shít if we took our eye of the ball and ended up with an Al Qaeda cell operating here that subsequently attacked the UK or something. Or maybe launched an attack on the infidels here instead.

Wicknight wrote:

So what "problems" are going to be caused based on the above post? You don't object to them being here and doing their thing, but them being here will cause problems, and that is a reason to object to them being here?

Am I following that correctly?

You are being deliberately obtuse again!

Wicknight wrote:

I don't go to mass, but they did to my father, grand father, uncle and aunts. You should try having a catholic father and a protestant mother if you think Catholic Ireland in the early 80s didn't preach about the "evils" of Protestants...

I do go to mass. I was speaking of my own experience.
I don't know anything about sermons in the early 80's and before. I wasn't there and I've never discussed this with anyone who was. If hate was preached against Protestants back then, I take your word for it.

Wicknight wrote:

(On immigration rate) Whats your answer?

The current rate of immigration is unsustainable for anything more than 5-10 more years IMO. If doesn't lead to violence and problems, which as you said, we may be able to work out by appealing to everyones' better natures - will there be enough jobs for everyone, how will our creaking infrastructure cope with all the extra people etc. You know, the usual stuff I'm sure you reject as bullshít...

Wicknight wrote:

Oh my god ... just because you get in there first with a "I'm stereotype again" quib doesn't mean that isn't exactly what you are doing. You might as well start off a sentence with "I'm not racist but..."

LOL. True I suppose.

Wicknight wrote:

That entire rant about "wealthy" D-South people (of which I am not one btw) is nonsense. You stereotype an entire area of people, assume you know they all think and vote alike, then critise them for the views you project onto them, and stand back as if you have some how uncovered a massive hypocracy in the Dublin social system

How is it nonsense? It is a crude generalisation of course - but that doesn't make it nonsense. All generalisations are not nonsense. Your extensive and funny rant characituring the positions of some anti-immigration people was a generalisation, wasn't it? It contained some truth though. You ask me to explain so much, so why don't you explain why it is nonsense and your rant isn't? As to the last point about the "Dublin Social System" - there is of course a massive hypcrisy involved. That's whats so funny! I don't claim to uncover anything. It's bloody obvious to anyone. When was the last time any racist in one of RTE's dramatic productions spoke in anything other than a "Dublin accent"? I'm not the only one who makes generalisations...

Anyway, you seem pretty angry about this particular generalisation. Did it strike a nerve, or may it fit any of the right-on kinda people you may know perhaps?

Wicknight wrote:

I would rather not be executed if its all the same ...

HA!HA!
I knew it. So, you'd pick "Old Sparky" rather than a stoning as well!

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Look at your joy when you found you could rip into my generalisations about wealthy people living on the southside of Dublin!

It wasn't joy, it was mild bewilderment that anyone could actually think this was a vaild argument or point ...

fly_agaric wrote:

That is being very "careful", is it not? I'm sure that to you it is an example of unfairness and bigotry however.

Black listing specific individuals (Muslim or not) because there are real grounds to suspect they are potential security risks has nothing to do with intergration, multiculturalism or cultural differences. For that matter it has very little to do with religion, Muslims, Eastern Europeans, or any of the other things we have just spend 4 pages talking about.

So I can only imagine that either a)that was not actually what you originally meant but are now back tracking to a safe position or b) you are just throwing in random points about unrelated topics for the hell of it.

fly_agaric wrote:

It doesn't really relate to the country going to shít because of immigration except in the sense that if we go to an extreme and throw our borders open to all we of course can't control who is here

Firstly no one is calling for open borders (but I love the way the people always retreat to arguing against that idea when it hasn't even be suggest, I guess it is easier to argue against),

Secondly that is nonsense, if we don't restrict access to the country on the basis of culture or religion we can still stop individuals who have been identified as security risks, be they Muslim, Christian or Pagan Druids

fly_agaric wrote:

We would be in the shít if we took our eye of the ball and ended up with an Al Qaeda cell operating here that subsequently attacked the UK or something.

We could ... what does that have to do with "too different" cultural differences between Muslims and Christians, veils, Eastern Europeans etc etc

fly_agaric wrote:

You are being deliberately obtuse again!

So that isn't your position ... ?

fly_agaric wrote:

The current rate of immigration is unsustainable for anything more than 5-10 more years IMO.

Why? What happens in 5 to 10 years .... ?

I would also point out that the "current" rate of immigration is not constant, it never has been, it never will be. It rises and falls depending on circumstances. So it is impossible to predict the rate of immigraiton in 5 years

That was the point I was making with that little "rant" you dismissed earlier.

We should, technically, be "swamped" by Nigerias and Polish people right now, if the "current rate" of immigration had been sustained (I think someone, back in 2001, said their will be 2.5 million Nigerians in Ireland in 2010 ...)

It doesn't work like that ... we have had massive increase in immigration into the country in the last 10 years, in which it has risen and fallen .. we still here, and in the grand sceme of things things are pretty much the same.

fly_agaric wrote:

will there be enough jobs for everyone, how will our creaking infrastructure cope with all the extra people etc.

Hey FF are in power ... I am amazed we have lasted this long ...

fly_agaric wrote:

How is it nonsense? It is a crude generalisation of course

Think you just answered your own question ...

fly_agaric wrote:

All generalisations are not nonsense.

Very true, but saying D-South people are hypocates because they vote for asylum seekers but then they don't want them living in their area is nonsense.

Why?

Because you have no idea if the same D-South people that vote for asylum seekers are the ones campaigning to not let asylum seekers be housed in D-South. So if you have no idea if they are the same people, it is nonsense to say they are hypocrates. If you actually had an individual you know who was all in support of asylum seekers but then started campaigning against letting them living in Dublin South you might have a point that they were hypocrates. But even then that doesn't translate into saying D-South people (voters) are hypocrates. Such a wide generalisation would be nearly impossible to make, without polling people specifically on that issue.

fly_agaric wrote:

Your extensive and funny rant characituring the positions of some anti-immigration people was a generalisation, wasn't it?

No it wasn't, it was a repeat of what I have been told by various anti-immigration posters over the years.

If, though, I assumed, for no reason other than the area they lived in, that all these posters were all going to vote for, say the Green Party or Labour, and then claim that the anti-immigration crowd are hypocrates, that would be a generalisation based on nothing.

But I wouldn't do that, because the argument would be nonsense ...

fly_agaric wrote:

When was the last time any racist in one of RTE's dramatic productions spoke in anything other than a "Dublin accent"?

What? Do you mean a Dublin North accent? Cause the last majory RTE production that dealt with racism was set down the country.

fly_agaric wrote:

Did it strike a nerve,

No as I said I'm not from Dublin South, and I am also not ranting out the portail of Dubliners (I assume you mean north-siders, otherwise you point doesn't even make sense) on RTE, or claiming Dublin South voters are hypocrates ... do you have something against people from Dublin South?

Any wide generalisation, be it of Muslims or people who live in Dublin South, is silly. But your arguments seem to be based entirely on these very types of generalisation, that are "bloody obvious" to everyone, seemingly ... If only you had told me that in teh first place ...

Who am I to argue with "everyone" :rolleyes:

lazydaisy

Yes WASP is the dominant culture in the US whether we like it or not. Assimilation means you are absorbed by the dominant culture. We are more like WASP Americans then we are like the cultures our parents come from so I dont carry my parents traits or histories and my other friends who are 1st generation Americans, like myself, do not carry their parents cultural attributes. Its called assimilation. Please don't start telling me what my own country is like. That would be more patronising than I can take. And yes, dark skinned people whose first language is spanish also become waspy. They start out by learning English! If you want to get anywhere in the US you need to know the language. That's how it is. Whether you think it is fair or not is an altogether different argument. I didnt say identical to wasp either, you did. If you knew anything about race you would know that not all hispanics are dark skinned and poor.

PSI - American science is dominated by Europeans- provide evidence of that please. Please show that these people who "dominate" American science are NOT US citizens. ANd that it is European money which is paying for the research. In what states is English not the first language? Please elaborate. I dont get the SHOCK part of what you said.

I cant even respond to these fundamentalist christian conspiracy theories. They are too funny for words.

When you are talking about immigration there are a couple of tiers to the argument - practical and ideological. Ireland cant sustain immigration. It is a small country with limited resources. Ideologically, people from one side of the river think people from the other side are foreigners so I dont know how anyone can expect the Irish to deal with this without some kind of preparation.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Very true, but saying D-South people are hypocates because they vote for asylum seekers but then they don't want them living in their area is nonsense.

Why?

Because you have no idea if the same D-South people that vote for asylum seekers are the ones campaigning to not let asylum seekers be housed in D-South. So if you have no idea if they are the same people, it is nonsense to say they are hypocrates. If you actually had an individual you know who was all in support of asylum seekers but then started campaigning against letting them living in Dublin South you might have a point that they were hypocrates. But even then that doesn't translate into saying D-South people (voters) are hypocrates. Such a wide generalisation would be nearly impossible to make, without polling people specifically on that issue.

I can't argue with that really I suppose. I can't identify the exact people involved so I can't determine the extent of overlap and thus the extent of the hypocrisy involved. I'm making an assumption that such an overlap is present.

The people in these areas in Dublin have, collectively, the most liberal attitudes to immigration in the entire country. Is this wrong?
These areas have far lower number of asylum seekers living in them than other parts of Dublin. Is this wrong?

Wicknight wrote:

No it wasn't, it was a repeat of what I have been told by various anti-immigration posters over the years.

But you applied it to all "anti-immigration types" including me - didn't you? At which point it became a generalisation, an extrapolation. Maybe not entirely unfair, but still...

Wicknight wrote:

If, though, I assumed, for no reason other than the area they lived in, that all these (anti-immigration) posters were all going to vote for, say the Green Party or Labour, and then claim that the anti-immigration crowd are hypocrates, that would be a generalisation based on nothing.

But I wouldn't do that, because the argument would be nonsense ...

Yes it would, because their party preference shouldn't really correlate well with their opinions on this issue should it? None of the parties have opposition to immigration as a main policy plank. In contrast, how someone voted in the citizenship referendum should correlate far better with their opinions on the numbers of asylum seekers coming to Ireland at that time, which should relate to their opinions on immigration as a whole - even if that wasn't the exact issue in the referendum. If not, why were all those who voted "yes" being called racists who had shamed Ireland IFIRC?

Wicknight wrote:

What? Do you mean a Dublin North accent? Cause the last majory RTE production that dealt with racism was set down the country.

Again - you know exactly what I mean.
What about that silly "Proof" series - with the usual hackneyed "scumbags" terrorising black asylum seekers around Moore St. (committing arson and murdering a child) and the crusading reporters doing battle for justice from, where else - South of the river Liffey?

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Black listing specific individuals (Muslim or not) because there are real grounds to suspect they are potential security risks has nothing to do with intergration, multiculturalism or cultural differences. For that matter it has very little to do with religion, Muslims, Eastern Europeans, or any of the other things we have just spend 4 pages talking about. So I can only imagine that either a)that was not actually what you originally meant but are now back tracking to a safe position or b) you are just throwing in random points about unrelated topics for the hell of it.

LOL. I'm surprised you agree with that. I thought many of these blacklisted people just had the wrong name, or have said some inflammatory things - not committed crimes or acts of terrorism.

Anyway, read again. The US has discriminates against entire countries by making it more difficult for people from there to get in - so it is relevant to the discussion.

This is what I was thinking of. You asked me to describe exactly what I meant by the word "careful" in relation to who comes into the country or not - I did so. As usual, you don't like the answer and insist I meant something else. And then you have the nerve to say I'm throwing out random points for the hell of it! You, who have called for exact definitions and descriptions ad infinitum and tossed out so many tenuous analogies about the Christians in the US/Catholics/Protestants/all kinds of tangentially related guff over these past few pages.

Wicknight wrote:

Firstly no one is calling for open borders (but I love the way the people always retreat to arguing against that idea when it hasn't even be suggest, I guess it is easier to argue against)

What then? Almost open borders? Noone who cannot be proved to be a threat to the security of the country should be barred from taking up residence in Ireland?

Wicknight wrote:

Secondly that is nonsense, if we don't restrict access to the country on the basis of culture or religion we can still stop individuals who have been identified as security risks, be they Muslim, Christian or Pagan Druids

Can we? I mean, if the US has raised the bar for entry just because they are from certain countries they mustn't be all that confident of identifying people who pose a threat.

Wicknight wrote:

We could ... what does that have to do with "too different" cultural differences between Muslims and Christians, veils, Eastern Europeans etc etc

Jesus Christ. Read back over the thread and you tell me? In less than 10 pages.

Wicknight wrote:

Why? What happens in 5 to 10 years .... ?

I would also point out that the "current" rate of immigration is not constant, it never has been, it never will be. It rises and falls depending on circumstances. So it is impossible to predict the rate of immigraiton in 5 years
That was the point I was making with that little "rant" you dismissed earlier.

I repeatedly said I was extrapolating. Of course, I don't know what the rate of immigration will over the next 5-10 years. I'm sure it will be very high if we have a very liberal immigration policy. For all our moaning, Ireland's not a bad place to live at present.

Wicknight wrote:

We should, technically, be "swamped" by Nigerias and Polish people right now, if the "current rate" of immigration had been sustained (I think someone, back in 2001, said their will be 2.5 million Nigerians in Ireland in 2010 ...)

The rate of Polish immigration is almost outside our control anyway and is subject to the laws of the "market". As for the Nigerians - our less liberal asylum policy over the past few years probably has something to do with the reduction in numbers. Did the political situation improve there also?

Wicknight wrote:

It doesn't work like that ... we have had massive increase in immigration into the country in the last 10 years, in which it has risen and fallen .. we still here, and in the grand sceme of things things are pretty much the same.

I don't think things are the same. They are not any worse though.
Has immigration risen and fallen? I though the trend was consistently upward (mostly returning emigrants, some asylum seekers) as the country has prospered - then with a massive spike after the admission of the accession states to the EU.
Must look for some figures on this. Do you have any?

Wicknight wrote:

(about my "generalisations" - Think you just answered your own question ...

That was a cheap shot. How unworthy of you.:rolleyes:

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

I cant even respond to these fundamentalist christian conspiracy theories. They are too funny for words.

Thats the point ... these "theories" that Christian fundamentalist are going to come into Ireland and change the culture are ridiculous .. and so is it when applied to Islam

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

No as I said I'm not from Dublin South

I saw that. I was asking did you know any of the NIMBY'S who fitted my generalisation or something. This comment seemed to make you particularly angry so I was curious.

Wicknight wrote:

do you have something against people from Dublin South?

Yep of course. I hate them all with a burning passion. They should be deported or burned at the stake on a pyre of farmer's market veggies!
Make of that what you will...:v: :v: :v:
Am I being serious here or not? You decide.

Wicknight wrote:

Any wide generalisation, be it of Muslims or people who live in Dublin South, is silly. But your arguments seem to be based entirely on these very types of generalisation, that are "bloody obvious" to everyone, seemingly ... If only you had told me that in teh first place ...
Who am I to argue with "everyone"

I only said one thing (count it) was "bloody obvious". I only made one generalisation - unless you are including what I said about xenophobia being part of peoples' nature for better or worse and it being responsible for intolerance and violence. I rather think that was a statement of fact and not a generalisation. You are spinning again.

grubber

Wibbs wrote:

Why religious fundamentalists? Why not secular military juntas? Why not democracies(after the usual civil wars etc). Why does it always go back to religion?


I suspect if either of us are pulling a Grubber, then a quick dash to the personal issues forum is on the cards.

There is certainly more scope inherent in Islam for military action than in almost all other religions. It was started and spread by military action for a start.

The fact is its not and neither are any of the other faiths to nearly the same extent as Islam.


See what you like. I'm at best an atheist with agnostic leanings.

You really don't know what you speak of. Seriously, a little more research and a little less self righteousness in the pursuit of your cause would serve you better. Regardless of this or any other argument, stoning is considered among the most painful ways to die imaginable. Every single thing you typed in that paragraph is wrong. No ifs, buts or maybes. In stoning the stones used must expressly not be large enough to cause death instantly nor small enough to be pebbles. This definition is designed to cause the most pain possible in the condemned. It is not only for women. Both men and women are buried, the man to the waist and the woman to the neck. If either escape before sentance is carried out they are free to go.(unlikely, but more likely for the man). It is also not carried out by a trained executioner, but by a group of people.

Some reference material might help;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#In_Islam
http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE130632005

The relevant passage;
"Methods of execution such as stoning, which are specifically designed to cause the victim grievous pain before death are of particular concern to Amnesty International, as the most extreme and cruel form of torture."

Did I say I agree with the death penalty? Your argument is all over the place here. Many Christian groups in America are precisely the ones campaigning against the death penalty as they consider it against the teachings of Jesus.

Again did I say it's anymore or less barbaric? No. What's your problem with American anyway. It seems to be your catchall for Christian society.

I seem to remember the Jesus bloke stopping a stoning for adultery.


Indeed, fair play to them. I notice it's the Christian nutters in the US that are putting pressure on these countries to allow women the vote.
We agree on one thing anyway. No arguments there.

Not to nearly the same extent.


Did Jesus, Buddha, Krishna whoever instruct him to do so? Good example anyway, now look at the record of human rights abuse under Islamic rule.
If they consider themselves Muslims they do, I'm afraid. The Quran and Hadeeth are quite clear on veiling. Only the face and hands are to be seen. If you consider it as a choice when all around you see it as a religious obligation, then fair enough. Ever hear of societal pressure?

Not silly at all. Find me a passage in the Gospels(catholic or protestant) that say kill those of another faith, or examples where Jesus calls the faithful to subjugate other faiths till there remains none but his. You can do the same for Buddha or any other faith founder you chose. The IRA and their ilk were condemned from every pulpit in the land. Where do most of the Islamic terrorists get their training? Religious schools. See the diff yet?

If you're ever on a plane and someone shouts "Allah wu Akbar", see how quick your cheeks clench. I don't think someone shouting "praise the lord" will have a tenth of the effect.

Well Jihad does mean struggle. Specifically in the cause of Allah. It has many meanings by some accounts, personal jihad against the self, jihad against the unbelievers, hypocrites and corrupt Muslims. Regardless of the various types, jihad as a concept has always had strong roots in Holy war. Specifically holy war against the unbelievers. Most of the Prophets early success in spreading the faith came about through "holy war". This military jihad has a long history.

I attacked(if you chose to see it like that) your chronology. Your grammar and spelling are fine TBH. In fact as you're dyslexic, I tip my hat to you. I wouldn't have noticed, which is the best compliment(just an aside, mutual ranting resume).

True. Afghanistan would be another one. Obviously it's not all bad, but the religious nutters seem to be gaining serious ground.

QUOTE from Wibbs "I suspect if either of us are pulling a Grubber, then a quick dash to the personal issues forum is on the cards. "

Wibbs
Excuse me but that was a cheap swipe. If you hadn't otherwise been talking so much sense I would have been forced to set the dogs on you!

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

PSI - American science is dominated by Europeans- provide evidence of that please. Please show that these people who "dominate" American science are NOT US citizens. ANd that it is European money which is paying for the research. In what states is English not the first language? Please elaborate. I dont get the SHOCK part of what you said. .

I actually should have said counties, not states. So I conceed that point.

On the other point, I have the stats and links here, however I'm not playing your game of demanding petulance until you answer calls by myself and others to provide "evidence" to support the numerous claims you've made throught this and the "lust" threads.

I find it amusing that you fail to provide any backup when questioned but demand it here.

fly_agaric

grubber wrote:

Wibbs
Excuse me but that was a cheap swipe. If you hadn't otherwise been talking so much sense I would have been forced to set the dogs on you!

Grubber - please post and tell Wicknight you are not me...if he/she/it will believe it coming from you!:D

lazydaisy

How many fundamentalist Christian americans are immigrating into Ireland? I would guess the number is 0.

How many muslims are? More than 0.

In practical terms it is much more likely that Islam will have an influence than fundamental christianity?

PSI - Which counties is English not the first language? Im not being difficult here, I really want to know. Counties in which state(s)? I still dont get the SHOCK part of your statement about this. And what exactly is your point?

You are being rude by calling me petulant. Im not being petulant. You're being fictictious. I dont fail to provide backups, you just dont accept what I offer. We've talked about this already a million times. Get over it. Demanding links is your game remember. Then getting them, then disqualifying them.

How is American science dominated by Europeans? Im not playing a game I just dont believe you.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

How many fundamentalist Christian americans are immigrating into Ireland? I would guess the number is 0.

How many muslims are? More than 0.

In practical terms it is much more likely that Islam will have an influence than fundamental christianity?

PSI - Which counties is English not the first language? Im not being difficult here, I really want to know. Counties in which state(s)? I still dont get the SHOCK part of your statement about this. And what exactly is your point?

Most of the border states in southern US have large proportion non-englihs peaking areas. Miami is an obvious example where 70-80% of the population speak spanish as a first language.

If you want specific, you can look em up here http://www.mla.org/census_map.

You are being rude by calling me petulant. Im not being petulant.

Your post borders on irony

You're being fictictious. I dont fail to provide backups, you just dont accept what I offer. We've talked about this already a million times. Get over it. Demanding links is your game remember. Then getting them, then disqualifying them.

That would be debate. I don't ask for "links" I ask for sources and evidence. Anyone can google some crappy link that is put up on the net. It doesn't make it a credible source.

You ignore any post that discredits you because you don't have the wherewithall to back your argument.

If you're going to spout forth nonsense, it would serve you will to make sure it looks like its coming from somewhere other than your own head.

How is American science dominated by Europeans? Im not playing a game I just dont believe you.

Well apart from the fact that over 70% of US science technology researchers hired at PhD level up are non-US nationals and that this has been the case for at least the past 20 years, these are the people getting the funding, it is also their work and concepts that attracts the grants and money. Of the 70%, last estimates but 60% of them being european in orign.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf04308/tt02.xls

The main sources of funding in the US, outside of NIH and other government grants are from european international sources, european led international agencies and private industry sponsors that were either EU founded or EU originating.

Both the sites I've the data from for this require .edu access. I'll copy them to excel and post links again if you doubt this. in the meantime, look at the non-US money sources here.
www.med.upenn.edu/postdoc/FundingOpps062101.doc

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

LOL. I'm surprised you agree with that.

You are surprised I agree with taking care to not let know terrorists into the country ... why exactly?

fly_agaric wrote:

I thought many of these blacklisted people just had the wrong name, or have said some inflammatory things - not committed crimes or acts of terrorism.

And I was being obtuse ... :rolleyes:

If you are stopping someone with a work permit coming into the country it should be because you have justifable reason to believe they are coming here to commit a crime.

If you are denying a work permit in the first place, the religion of the person should not effect this.

Their religion or place of origin should not be the sole reason for stopping someone. You shouldn't stop someone entering the country just because they are Muslim, or are coming from a Muslim country, or are called Muhammad.

And this doesn't apply to just Muslims. Christians should not be stopped entering the country, but if the Gardi suspect an specific person is coming into the country to commit a crime they should be stopped.

I mean, is that such an unreasonable idea?

fly_agaric wrote:

Anyway, read again. The US has discriminates against entire countries by making it more difficult for people from there to get in - so it is relevant to the discussion.

Only if we were currently in America .. which we aren't ... last time I looked we were in Ireland discussin Irish issues with immigration into Ireland.

fly_agaric wrote:

What then? Almost open borders? Noone who cannot be proved to be a threat to the security of the country should be barred from taking up residence in Ireland?

As soon as you define "almost" open borders I'll comment on that idea

No one should be restricted from coming to live and world based solely on their religion or place of origin.

fly_agaric wrote:

Can we? I mean, if the US has raised the bar for entry just because they are from certain countries they mustn't be all that confident of identifying people who pose a threat.

Sorry, did I miss the part where the US State Department and Dept. of Home Land Security rule the day when it comes to measured and sensible response to potential threats...?

Do you agree that with the US government in barring entry based on place of origin and religion (which I am not sure they do, but anyway..) ... cause that seems to conflict with what you are saying about "I just want to keep an eye on them"

fly_agaric wrote:

I repeatedly said I was extrapolating. Of course, I don't know what the rate of immigration will over the next 5-10 years. I'm sure it will be very high if we have a very liberal immigration policy.

Ok, extrapolating, what happens in 10 years ...

fly_agaric wrote:

Must look for some figures on this. Do you have any?

http://www.fas.ie/information_and_publications/publications/labour_reports/2005q3.pdf.

You will notice that along with the fact we need more immigrants and the increse of immigrants hasn't effected a rise in unemployment (in fact it has dropped) that work permits (nothing to do with asylum seekers, so not due to harsher asylum laws) from Third World countries fell this year ... looks like we wont be swamped by unemployed black people ... few! I was worried there for a sec ...

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

How many fundamentalist Christian americans are immigrating into Ireland? I would guess the number is 0.
How many muslims are? More than 0.

Are those offical government figures (actually "more than 0" does sound like something FF would say I suppose)

lazydaisy wrote:

In practical terms it is much more likely that Islam will have an influence than fundamental christianity?

Well in purely "practical" terms, I got a "The Flaws of Evolution" pamplet through my door a few months ago (2 actually, from 2 different organisation). And I have been stopped a number of times on the Luas and Dart by Americans who want to "rap about Jesus" (not making this up)

Can't ever remember ever getting a "Why women are stupid" pamplet, or hearing I am going to hell for being an infidel lately ...

And don't get me started on Scientology!! ... if another eejit on Grafton St asks me if I want a personality test I'll kill him! You Americans (Tom Cruise in particular) have a lot to answer for!

lazydaisy wrote:

How is American science dominated by Europeans? Im not playing a game I just dont believe you.

A load of European scientist fled Europen during WW2 to come to America. This formed the basis for most of the American post war scienctific progress. This of course was a good thing, America provided a safe haven for these scientists to work (including the German rocket scientists who helped the Americans in the space race). Since then American research money has attracted the cream of European science to come to America. That is also a good thing. But it does lead to the fact that American science since 1945 has be dominated by Europeans. That isn't a bad thing. And it is also way off topic.

LazyDaisy I never meant for my posts to actually attack America. They point was they were supposed to highlight the hypocracy of singling out certain groups of fundamentalist in the world and then applying their warped view of religion to the wider religion and culture. THere is no denying that there is a rather large base on fundamentalist in America, but that shouldn't tar every American or Christian with the tag fundamentalist.

As Psi pointed out there are moderate Muslims right up to extreme "I'll blow you infidel head off" type Muslims, just like there are in every religion and every culture.

Of course it is rather ironic that this turned into a "how dare you! my country is much better than theirs" type debate ... I would imagine now you know how most Muslims feel when they face the same ridiculous stereotyping and generalisations about their religion and cultures ..

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Grubber - please post and tell Wicknight you are not me...if he/she/it will believe it coming from you!:D

I have never seen you both in the same room fly_agaric (if that is your real name)

grubber

fly_agaric wrote:

Grubber - please post and tell Wicknight you are not me...if he/she/it will believe it coming from you!:D

I don't think we will make any headway here. You see Wicknight isn't going to take the word of some white Catholic bloke who lacks political correctness. Now if we could arrange to have it printed in the Koran. That's it! If we can insert the words "Fly_Agaric is not the same person as Grubber" somewhere between the verses about the correct way to beat your wife, and those giving instructions to kill infidels and unbelievers.
Wicknight would swallow that, hook, line and sinker.

GuanYin

grubber wrote:

I don't think we will make any headway here. You see Wicknight isn't going to take the word of some white Catholic bloke who lacks political correctness.

Actually I'd imagine if wicknight isn't listening to someone, their skin colour and religion play no bearing in the matter. I'd imagine its down to their lack of objectivity and refusal to accept that many of their beliefs have no basis in fact and don't hold up to intelligent scrutiny.

Of course, I may just be putting words in his mouth.

Zombrex

grubber wrote:

You see Wicknight isn't going to take the word of some white Catholic bloke who lacks political correctness.

True, I don't in fact like white people, I much prefer Arab people (wait, aren't they white .. oh never mind), cause they are tanned and dirty and speak in funny accents which I just think is neet

And of course I am very very ashamed of the fact that I myself is white. How I wish my mother had been an Muslim woman growing up in a free and democractic Iran .. oh wait thats wrong .. sorry .. an oppressed and fundamentalist Iran (The CIA - "Spreading the Love since 1949"). Oh course that would make me 5 years old, but it would be worth it to be a slightly off colour shade of white, as opposed to the "true" white that Irish people are (of which I am ashamed).

I freely admit it .. no secret police involved here, I am after all a man (few!).

I am also (seemingly) ashamed of my Irish culture and history, especially fecking potatos!, though technically that was the Americans again! (though I must clarify, not the CIA)

I can't wait for Irish culture (including the potato) to be destroyed by wave after wave of barbaric, non-civilised, oppressive .. oh wait sorry, that wasn't very PC of me ... "too different" ... Muslims (with a few Christian Nigerians with AIDS thrown in for good measure)

grubber wrote:

Now if we could arrange to have it printed in the Koran. That's it!

Ah yes the Koran (Quar'an), what a book!

I have two beside my bed, on for each side in case the girlfriend gets a bit snappy and I need a quick and effective way to oppress her (it better than Irelands Own).

If I wasn't an athesist and ideologically opposed to all forms of organised religion, I would definately be a Muslim!

grubber wrote:

If we can insert the words "Fly_Agaric is not the same person as Grubber" somewhere between the verses about the correct way to beat your wife, and those giving instructions to kill infidels and unbelievers.

True, the Bible is just not useful with its descriptions of how to kill homosexuals and other sinners ... I mean honestly between a job and oppressing the little woman, when I am going to find the time to kill homosexuals!

And don't get me started on its advice on women, sure it all about paying fathers after you raped their daughters! I mean seriously I just don't have that kinda money! .. And the bit about killing someone cause they let mold in the house, I believe in a clean room as much as the next guy, but I just don't have time to clean the mold and kill the person that let it (unless of course its the little woman, who I oppress daily so it would be two birds with one stone .. ha ha .. get it .. stone ... stoning .. who says the Quar'an isn't funny! )

The Quar'an, now thats a book you can you use in day to day life!

I mean I am always planning massive religous wars over large continents! I need to know how to do this without offending God! (sorry offending Allah!)

And taxing non-Muslims instead of, you know, converting or killing them like the foolish Christians did (fools!). Thats just brilliant! It just makes sound economic sense. I am going to need the money when I take back Persia (or maybe for all the women I raped and married, oh sorry getting my books mixed up again ...)

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

As soon as you define "almost" open borders I'll comment on that idea

I pretty much did - in that sentence - "Noone who cannot be proved to be a threat to the security of the country should be barred from taking up residence in Ireland?" I suppose I could add some types of criminals to that too.

In other words - apply - and if you don't seem to be too bad of a skin (haven't got a criminal record or on some list of terrorists maintained by those zany people at the CIA and MI5 etc), you can come in!

You then write:

No one should be restricted from coming to live and world based solely on their religion or place of origin.

Would that mean you wouldn't entertain some kind of quota on immigration from outside the EU?

Wicknight wrote:

Sorry, did I miss the part where the US State Department and Dept. of Home Land Security rule the day when it comes to measured and sensible response to potential threats...?

Sorry - did I not notice Ireland's massive and well-funded and staffed intelligence agencies and immigration services capable of conducting the necessary background checks on large numbers of prospective non-EU immigrants? How silly and unobservant of me.

Wicknight wrote:

Do you agree that with the US government in barring entry based on place of origin and religion (which I am not sure they do, but anyway..) ... cause that seems to conflict with what you are saying about "I just want to keep an eye on them"

This is all off-topic really as I'm sure you will tell me.
I think there are now more hoops for people from at least some muslim countries trying to get a visa to jump through - even just for travel rather than residency.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html

On the other hand, for travellers from several European and western countries we have the lovely:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html

This:

http://www.rabat.usembassy.gov/services/consular/General_Visa_Information.htm

seems alot less friendly and welcoming somehow than:

http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/consular/visas.html

for example (see various warnings and a blurb about Sept. 11th at the end of the 1st link - you have to go a link in to get that stich if you are coming from Australia).

Yes I would agree with their policy. I think it is sensible. Alot of people seem to hate them. Although, perhaps they should be just as worried about people coming from Europe given recent acts of terrorism - and that would have the benefit that nobody could say they were being unfair to muslims.

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, extrapolating, what happens in 10 years ...

I don't know - but I'll play.

Okay. Say, Ireland has massive and uncontrolled immigration from countries with "very different cultures". (I know you don't accept this as a problem and you've argued with several people about what it means, trying to shoot them down with the racist arrow if they get into specifics on Islam for example, but bear with me. I already have said that isn't happening at the moment here. Our immigration rate is too high IMO but we can't control that.)

People are literally dying to get into the EU, so there will never be any shortage of immigrants for a time.

The different groups begin to ghettoise into communities, have their own schools etc as in Britain. Maybe the immigrants have been discriminated against by people here, experienced racism. I mean, stuff like Gama and Irish Ferries wouldn't exactly give me hope that immigrant workers will get a fair deal from their employers here. No doubt, you would also blame people like me for being somewhat stinting in our welcome.

Ireland's economy then suffers a bit of a reversal of fortunes. And you have sizeable groups of people who don't particularly like each other sitting in a small country with crap infrastructure (I can't see any of our governments sorting out problems in this area) and no jobs. I don't think anything good could come of this.

BTW, thanks for the FAS link.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

I have never seen you both in the same room fly_agaric (if that is your real name)

He just left. /jk
Honestly - I'm not him and I don't have a bog who he is. He could be posting from Bush's new moonbase or he could be a some type of AI program developed by Google engineers FAIK.

lazydaisy

Its an odd event that I have been harrassed more by American Mormons when in Ireland than I ever have been in America. If someone handed me a pamphlet about the flaws of evolution, I think I would say "yeah, I can see its flawed, evolution missed a beat when you were created." The whole evangelical energy of the south, in particular the Bible belt, is incredibly hypocritical, but so are many areas in the world which are religiously saturated and then live quite differently behind closed doors. This is as true for Alabama as it is for Saudi Arabia.

Could you imagine the reaction if Muslims stood on the dart handing out pamphlets about Allah? Or rang your doorbell like the Mormons do trying to convert you?

Psi- If I spout such nonsense, why dont you just ignore me? I ignore anyone who discredits me? Not true. I often ignore you not because you discredit me but because you insult me. If you do it again I will go back to ignoring you.

Miami is a city, not a county. There are a few cities, miami being one of them where the dominant language is Spanish. Its difficult to proportionate how many have it as a first or second language as so many children of immigrants learn both languages at the same time. Im still not sure why this is SHOCKING.

PSI -not all hispanics are dark skinned and poor. You can drop that racist perception right now.

Yeah - the science being dominated by Europeans, hmmnn. Im still not sure I buy it. From the link you provided psi, it still looked to me that most of the funding was American. Also - I was confused as to whether those stats included practiioners in the private sectors. Im assuming it did. So pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medicine, geology, psychiatry, space exploration, environmental science, is all dominated by people of European origin who also trained in Europe?

WK - I know America hosted a lot of European scientists during and after the war, and theres no denying there has been a presence in US science but psi is claiming that it is dominated by Europeans, which is hard to believe considering how many government agencies are now requiring employees to be US citizens, including NASA.

Wibbs

psi wrote:

Are you putting words in someones mouth there?

Apologies. yes I was. My mistake. Got lost in the rant as you do...

Wicknight wrote:

So was Christianity, which spread on the heals of the Roman Empire .../I ask you again, what are you basing that on? How many wars where faught in Europe based on Christian conflict?

Plenty. The difference is that unlike Mohammed, none of the founders of any other religion personally fought wars to promote their faith.

Not if it is done to Islamic teaching. Firstly a "crowd" doesn't pelt a person with stones for half an hour under Islamic law.

I repeat, everything you typed in your original post on this matter was wrong. I will repost one of the links and insert the relevant paragraph; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#In_Islam

"The crowd then pelts the victim with stones small enough so that one cannot cause death by itself. In some places, if the criminal manages to struggle free and escape, further punishment is cancelled."

Stoning is a public and communal punishment. That's one of its points. Obviously you're right and Wikipedia(and all other sources are wrong). Fair enough. I have agreed with other points were I was wrong(Persia for a start), yet you have difficulty with this particular point. Why?

I am not saying I agree with it. I don't. But I fail to see the difference between a stoning a person to death and pumping 700 volts of electricity through them.

The pros and cons of the death penalty are a topic best debated elsewhere, but I'll bite. Well for a start, the US constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment(I know, it's kinda laughable considering..). The history of electrocution as a method of execution shows that it was (wrongly) thought to be more "humane". Most states now have lethal injection as a choice for the condemned as it's considered more "humane"(it isn't particularly for many reasons). The gas chamber was largely discontinued as it was considered too cruel. Stoning, on the other hand is designed to cause the most suffering possible before death.

Nope, but you are using it as a reason Islam is bad, while ignoring the fact that Christians execute people in equally brutal fashion.

None of the execution methods used by the US are found in Christian/Jewish religious texts. The execution methods of Islamic states are however found in the religious texts of Islam.

And many Muslims campaign against stoning ... does that mean Muslims are good now?

..and many don't. Your point being?

Isn't there a change that your views are based more on the stereotypical idea of the Muslim as "fundamentalist nut case" that is presented by the post 9/11 media, but that doesn't necessarily hold to reality

Actually my views on Islam were mostly formed way before 9/11.

True, but I seem to remember it was Jews doing the stoning (rather than Muslims since they didn't exist). Should we stop Jews entering the country and influencing our society?

When was the last time an Israeli court condemned someone to death for stoning? Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and the UAE have and do. There are moves afoot in Pakistan to have it(and other Sharia style punishments) brought in.

Actually they are putting pressure on these countries to convert to Christianity, and then allow women to vote ... kinda different ... as Anna Colter said "We should kill all their leaders and convert them all to Christianity" ... kind of a round-about way of doing it, but you have to commend the directness

And your evidence for this conspiracy is....?

He did it because he was taught by his religion that being gay is a mortal sin

One nutter does not an argument make. A group of religiously driven ones may.

What as opposed to the human rights records of Christian countries like the USA, South Africa, Argentina ... etc etc ..

Again where in the tenets of their faith did it say to abuse human rights? The Cambodians are largely Buddhist, did the Buddha suggest Pol Pots genocide? Same for the Japanese. Did Buddhist teachings give them any directions for the prosecution of war?

I am not following your point... the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality ... the Catholic church is quite clear on going to mass and contraception ... all religions are quite clear on what you have to do to be a part of it, yet religious people, including Muslims, let these things slide all the time .. I already linked to a photo of a (quite hot) Muslim woman wearing a short skirt and low cut top in Kuwait

You can say that living in a largly secular country with rules and laws about such things. Those women are not(and are bloody brave to speak out(and she is quite hot indeed)). Ask most Muslims and they will say that women should be veiled. Check out any link to any mainstream Muslim site for the Muslim view on this.

Firstly, no they weren't ...

Oh yes they were.

Secondly every terrorist campaign carried out by Muslim fundamentalists has been condemned by the Muslim community in the West and Middle East.

Yet a sadly small number of Fatwas has been issued against them.

Saudi Arabia condemned the 9/11 attacks even though they are probably the most Muslim of countries in the world and the attackers were from that country.

Yes they did. For largely political reasons.

Islamic terrorist don't get military training in religious schools, they get training to hate westerners, just like IRA members got "training" to hate Protestants from sunday mass

Hate westerners eh? My original question still stands. How can a commonly understood religious text help hate and fight anyone? Your latter statement is frankly silly.

I think if I was on a bus in Dublin and someone shouted "Death to the Pope" it would have the same effect ...

Ok I believe you, thousands wouldn't.

Firstly the inital Arab wars that spread the Islamic empires were done for power and wealth rather than to spread the good word.

You mean the wars fought by the Prophet himself?

In fact conversion was fround upon because, as you pointed out, Muslims could not tax other Muslims so it was in the interest of the wealthy and powerful to keep people non-Muslim so they could be taxed.

Actually they could. It's just that they could tax non Muslims more. It was only when the Muslims achieved the power and numbers tgo dominate did such a system take over.

Secondly Christianity has a long long long history of religious wars to "spread the faith" .. ever heard of the Crusades?

I refer you to my first paragraph. Did any other religious founder say physically fight the unbelievers wherever you find them? Nope.

As an aside, I find it interesting that one can take christianity(RC, Protestantism etc), or any other faith for that matter to task for their sometimes dubious pasts, yet Islam seems off limits. There are things I could type about Catholic Ireland that might get me banned if I said them about Islam.

I don't go to mass, but they did to my father, grand father, uncle and aunts. You should try having a catholic father and a protestant mother if you think Catholic Ireland in the early 80s didn't preach about the "evils" of Protestants...

Well actually I do have some experience of that, having the reverse of what you describe(RC Mother/CofI father). I grew up in the 70s/80s(even attended a catholic school) and honestly, not once did I hear any such thing. Maybe that kinda stuff went on in the sticks, but certainly not in the Dublin I grew up in.

Grubber wrote:

Wibbs
Excuse me but that was a cheap swipe. If you hadn't otherwise been talking so much sense I would have been forced to set the dogs on you!

Please tell me you're joking. At least we can be sure I'm not Grubber

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Miami is a city, not a county. There are a few cities, miami being one of them where the dominant language is Spanish. Its difficult to proportionate how many have it as a first or second language as so many children of immigrants learn both languages at the same time. Im still not sure why this is SHOCKING.

Its the US census statistics you're not believing.

I gave you miami as an example, the link I gave you to the US gov census gave counties. The result is the same.

Basically what you're saying is, you don't want to believe it so it isn't true.

Is your bubble comfy?

PSI -not all hispanics are dark skinned and poor. You can drop that racist perception right now.

Please show me where I made such a statement or indicated such an opinion.

(I'll accept your forthcoming apology when you can't).

Yeah - the science being dominated by Europeans, hmmnn. Im still not sure I buy it.

Ah yes, back in your bubble I see.

US state figures aren't to be believed because laisydaisy's argument might suffer.

Sure we all know the US government doesn't spend to much attention on things like how many non-nationals are working in their country or stuff like that (you seem to have a problem with sarcasm, so this is just a note to indicate that was it).

From the link you provided psi, it still looked to me that most of the funding was American. Also - I was confused as to whether those stats included practiioners in the private sectors. Im assuming it did. So pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medicine, geology, psychiatry, space exploration, environmental science, is all dominated by people of European origin who also trained in Europe?

I didn't realise you had an indepth knowledge of science funding bodies.

Did you look at how much funding each one gave? Did you look at how many bursaries were on offer? I never specified number of agencies, I specified amount of funding.

Anyway, when you take EU origin private funding (such as pharma/biotech) then you're talking much bigger money.

Oh and as regard industry EU workers, the researchers are again string in EU/non-US nationals.

NewDubliner

lazydaisy wrote:

Could you imagine the reaction if Muslims stood on the dart handing out pamphlets about Allah? Or rang your doorbell like the Mormons do trying to convert you?

Very unlikely to happen as Islam does not promote proselytism. If you want to join up you go to a mosque and ask. There are no Muslim missionaries. People are not converted to Islam, they accept it. It is a totally voluntary choice.

lazydaisy wrote:

How many fundamentalist Christian americans are immigrating into Ireland? How many muslims are?

To compare, like with like, you should ask how many fundamenalist Muslims. Not all Muslims are fundamentalist.