Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

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

For what reason?

At the moment a person can get a work permit in Ireland if there is a job available that cannot be filled locally. There are currently problems with this system (such as workers being tied to a certain employer, meaning it is hard to move jobs if you are treated badly), but I fail to see what introducing a quota system for certain ethnic, religious our cultural groups would achieve (eg. we only want 50,000 Muslims please, no more..)

fly_agaric wrote:

How silly and unobservant of me.

And your answer is what? Use the US State Department instead ....

fly_agaric wrote:

Yes I would agree with their policy. I think it is sensible. Alot of people seem to hate them.

But it doesn't do anything except give a false sense of security. It is a politcal rather than security measure. Most (all if i'm not mistaken) of the 9/11 terrorist were legally in the country, had legal documents to be there. The British Underground bombers were British citizen, they could have gone to America quite easily if they had wanted to.

fly_agaric wrote:

Say, Ireland has massive and uncontrolled immigration from countries with "very different cultures".

We don't have uncontrolled immigration, but I'll ... er ... play ...

fly_agaric wrote:

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

True

fly_agaric wrote:

No doubt, you would also blame people like me for being somewhat stinting in our welcome.

No doubt ... i really don't like the "we aren't welcoming so we shouldn't have immigrants" argument

fly_agaric wrote:

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.

What the difference between that and having a sizeable groups of native people sitting in a small country with crap infrastructure and no jobs? The social problems will be exactly the same. Have immigrants or not having immigrants will make very little difference if the economy goes completely tits up in 10 years. Except immigrants are currently stoping the economy going tits up right now.

I mean if you can't get a job you can't get a job. If I was unemployed I wouldn't really care if an Irish person or an Arab immigrant living here for ten years took the job I reallly really wanted. I would still want to bash his head in with a rusty pike. And I still wouldn't have a job.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

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

Actually loads of founders of religions fought wars, but I assume you mean Jesus didn't which is true. But then again Christianity didn't really form properly till Jesus was dead and it is pretty hard to spread the good word when you are dead. Lots and lots of wars were fought to spread the word of Christianity, so I fail to see your point.

Wibbs wrote:

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).

Wikipedia is wrong (which isn't a surpise, wikipedia is wrong all the time)

From a BBC website (though not autoristed by the BBC)

Wibbs wrote:

Incidentally the correct Islamic method of stoning according to Sharia was similar to that advised by the Pharisees at the time of Jesus - the person was held fast in a fixed position, and a stone or rock that it took two men to lift (i.e. was heavier than one man could lift alone) was to be dropped to crush the head - it was not someone tied to a post and rocks hurled at them, although this has been done in some cultures. The point was that if someone really had to be executed, it was to be done swiftly, with as little torture as possible, and usually publicly so that no vindictive person could do further nasty things behind the scenes and get away with it.

I am not saying it is right, but it is the way Islamic law says a person should die by stoning.

Wibbs wrote:

Stoning, on the other hand is designed to cause the most suffering possible before death.

Not if done following Islamic law, quite the opposite it was done to be as quick as possible bar beheading which cannot be performed on women.

Wibbs wrote:

None of the execution methods used by the US are found in Christian/Jewish religious texts.

What the electric chair and letal injection ... there is a surprise ..

Wibbs wrote:

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

What ever your point was when you said many Christians are against capital punishment

Wibbs wrote:

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

It isn't a conspiracy, its open policy

Wibbs wrote:

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

So I do have a point ... or is their only one nutter in America?

Wibbs wrote:

Again where in the tenets of their faith did it say to abuse human rights?

Where ever they want it to say it. Murder has been approved, justified and supported by Christian churches all over the world, from the destruction of the Native Americans, to the Holocaust, to the genocides in Africa.

Wibbs wrote:

You can say that living in a largly secular country with rules and laws about such things.

So would any Muslims that come to live here

Wibbs wrote:

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

You support Fatwas?

Wibbs wrote:

Yes they did. For largely political reasons.

Political reasons ... you aren't suggesting that politics is more important and plays a bigger role in fundamentalist countries than religion are you?

Wibbs wrote:

How can a commonly understood religious text help hate and fight anyone?

It doesn't

Wibbs wrote:

Ok I believe you, thousands wouldn't.

You wouldn't be scared if a person form Northern Ireland got on a bus with a bag, shouted "f**k the Pope" and went for the bag? You would just go "Sure it can't be a bomb, there is a cease fire .. its probably just a joke"

Wibbs wrote:

You mean the wars fought by the Prophet himself?

Yeah the wars fought by the Prophet himself. You do know I don't actually think he was a prophet right?

Wibbs wrote:

Did any other religious founder say physically fight the unbelievers wherever you find them? Nope.

Again I assume you are talking about Jesus who was dead before his religion got off the ground

I would point out that the Quar'an doesn't say wage war against non-believers where ever you find them. In fact it says Jihad is to be used only in defense of Muslims when all other methods (including relocation) have failed. Of course "defense" is open to interpretation, just like Jesus saying "believe in me and you will be saved" can be used as a justification for taking native American children and raising them in settler camps so they will be saved and not go to hell

Wibbs wrote:

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.

Who says Islam is off limits? You can critize the religion all you like, I will probably fully support you. I am ideologically opposed to all western religions Christianity and Islam included.

Just don't expect to be able to go "Islam is terrible and we really should limit Muslims entering the country" without someone pointed out that most of the problems with Islam are also found in Christianity and Judaism.

Wibbs wrote:

There are things I could type about Catholic Ireland that might get me banned if I said them about Islam.

Banned by who? The Islamic council of Boards.ie?

Wibbs wrote:

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.

I am happy for you.

lazydaisy

Psi- sorry you're right- it was homeowner who made the bigoted remarks about hispanics.

As for the funding- there was nothing in the link that I could see that had numbers. It had a list of agencies with descriptions of what the funding was for. There were links listed with each agency - perhaps that is where you can find the amounts? I tried to click them, but nothing happens.

The link you gave me from the NSF was in excel so I couldnt open it directly from what you pasted because I dont have excel. So I went to the website and look around myself and they referred to scientists and engineers who were not born in the US. Perhaps this was not the same part of the site that you were looking at?

This is what I was looking at:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c3/c3s4.htm#c3s4l3a

and also found this:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib99327.htm

I don't disbelieve the US census about Miami. I know thats true. All I said was its hard to determine the proportions of who speaks it as a first and who speaks it as a second language and that MLA link, though it did indicate how many speak it at home, would not be able really to get an accurate sense of this. In fact there are towns in Florida and Texas where the percentage is as high as 92-95%, and it is likely that a proportion of that speaks it as a first language [immigrants], and a proportion speaks it as a second language [ as in the children and grandchildren of immigrants].

I wonder what this pie would look like if Ireland's first language had remained Irish. [Off topic I know - but I think its an interesting idea]
http://www.mla.org/cgi-shl/docstudio/docs.pl?census_data_ordered

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

I dont - thats why I ended the sentence with a question mark. They look like this: ? They are used at the end of sentences to indicate a question.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Psi- sorry you're right- it was homeowner who made the bigoted remarks about hispanics.

NP, perhaps cool down a bit though.

As for the funding- there was nothing in the link that I could see that had numbers. It had a list of agencies with descriptions of what the funding was for. There were links listed with each agency - perhaps that is where you can find the amounts? I tried to click them, but nothing happens.

Nope, I'm only behind a .edu firewall during US working hours so I'll get you a proper link (in non excel format ) then.

The link I gave you was just to highlight the major bodies that fund US science from the EU.

The point is slightly off the one I was making. Apart from the large proportion of non-gov funding that originates outside the US (either through parent company funding, international grant or charity). The people GETTING the money into the labs, by and large aren't american.

The link you gave me from the NSF was in excel so I couldnt open it directly from what you pasted because I dont have excel. So I went to the website and look around myself and they referred to scientists and engineers who were not born in the US. Perhaps this was not the same part of the site that you were looking at?

Your link was using data from 1995 (although written in 2000). Alot can happen in 10 years in science.

The link I gave you had data that was 7 years more up to date (end 2002) and showed new doctorates entering the professions every year for 9 years were 75-80% non US. Now the trend hasn't changed despite the foreign policy shift.

At postdoctoral level (not grad student, senior contract or academic level) alone, the US is estimated to employ 500,000 European scientists at end of 2004.

In case you don't believe that, from your own link:

The large increases shown by 2000 Census data may in part reflect recent arrivals in the United States, because 42.5 percent of all college-educated foreign-born individuals in S&E occupations reported arriving in the United States after 1990.

I don't disbelieve the US census about Miami. I know thats true. All I said was its hard to determine the proportions of who speaks it as a first and who speaks it as a second language and that MLA link, though it did indicate how many speak it at home, would not be able really to get an accurate sense of this.

Your grasping here. Its census data, what your suggesting would amount to spanish-speaking homes to lie to census takers about what language they speak at home. Apart from being a felony, why would they do this?

In fact there are towns in Florida and Texas where the percentage is as high as 92-95%, and it is likely that a proportion of that speaks it as a first language [immigrants], and a proportion speaks it as a second language [ as in the children and grandchildren of immigrants].

Strangely enough no. I recently spent a good deal of time in Miami with work. Its quite obvious from speaking to everyone from hotel clerks to shop attendants to police officers to local academics that alot of people don't speak english as a first language. They speak it fluently, but not as a first language.

I dont - thats why I ended the sentence with a question mark. They look like this: ? They are used at the end of sentences to indicate a question.

This is the part of your post that my comment applied to

From the link you provided psi, it still looked to me that most of the funding was American.

Can you point out where the question mark is?

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Actually loads of founders of religions fought wars, but I assume you mean Jesus didn't which is true. But then again Christianity didn't really form properly till Jesus was dead and it is pretty hard to spread the good word when you are dead. Lots and lots of wars were fought to spread the word of Christianity, so I fail to see your point.

Loads eh? Oh yea, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster.........

Wikipedia is wrong (which isn't a surpise, wikipedia is wrong all the time)

From a BBC website (though not autoristed by the BBC)

Linky please.

I am not saying it is right, but it is the way Islamic law says a person should die by stoning.

So the method described that is used by the countries under Sharia law is wrong then? I'm sure they have more of a grasp of the reigious/legal argument than you do. You appear lost on basic terms, reference and chronology.

What the electric chair and letal injection ... there is a surprise ..

The point is they could have gone with the "religious" methods, but they didn't.

It isn't a conspiracy, its open policy

Well, I must have missed that anouncement by the US Gov.

So I do have a point ... or is their only one nutter in America?

You only have a point if whoever his god is told him to kill Gay people.

Where ever they want it to say it. Murder has been approved, justified and supported by Christian churches all over the world, from the destruction of the Native Americans, to the Holocaust, to the genocides in Africa.

Worms, can opened.

You support Fatwas?

Do you even know what a Fatwa is? A Fatwa is a religious edict. It can range from the mundane, such as when the precise time Ramadan starts all the way to Salman Rushdie has insulted the Prophet and must die. You really need to research this stuff. How can you hope to posit an argument when you don't even understand the basic terms?

Political reasons ... you aren't suggesting that politics is more important and plays a bigger role in fundamentalist countries than religion are you?

When one ruling family are in power of course it does.

You wouldn't be scared if a person form Northern Ireland got on a bus with a bag, shouted "f**k the Pope" and went for the bag? You would just go "Sure it can't be a bomb, there is a cease fire .. its probably just a joke"

Well since suicide bombers are pretty scarce among the nutters on both sides of the divide up north, I'd be a lot less scared.

Yeah the wars fought by the Prophet himself. You do know I don't actually think he was a prophet right?

Yet you still fail to see the differences between the faiths.

Again I assume you are talking about Jesus who was dead before his religion got off the ground

Yea the same bloke, like Buddha who preached turning the other cheek. I seem to remember he even stopped his supporters from defending him with swords at one point. Do you think he would have started getting all military if he'd lived? Unlikely.

I would point out that the Quar'an doesn't say wage war against non-believers where ever you find them.

I'll think you find it does. Check out the skeptics guide you posted earlier for reference if you like.

Of course "defense" is open to interpretation, just like Jesus saying "believe in me and you will be saved" can be used as a justification for taking native American children and raising them in settler camps so they will be saved and not go to hell

True, but that's one hell of a jump of interpretation. Many passages in the Quran need little interpretation or justification.

Who says Islam is off limits? You can critize the religion all you like, I will probably fully support you. I am ideologically opposed to all western religions Christianity and Islam included.

You and me both.

Just don't expect to be able to go "Islam is terrible and we really should limit Muslims entering the country" without someone pointed out that most of the problems with Islam are also found in Christianity and Judaism.

Agreed, but idealogically there are differences and that should be acknowledged. I am also very wary of religion. Any time you get one group who assume a god given right of being superior to others, you've got trouble. The fact is that Islam(as laid down in the Quran and Hadeeth) is more intolerant of non believers and has far more martial origins, teachings and leanings. This IMO makes it the more dangerous.

Banned by who? The Islamic council of Boards.ie?

It exists? Why didn't I see the memo?

I am happy for you.

Wonderful riposte and point well addressed. I feel truly humbled.

homeOwner

lazydaisy wrote:

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.

WASP is NOT the dominant culture in the US. Go to the mid west, the south, the central states and try telling them that they are wasps. You dont have to be american to see the demographics and cultural makeup of your country. It is not patronising to state facts - do seem to not know what patronising means.

Learning english does not make one a wasp.

I never said that all hispanics are dark skinned and poor. I was giving an example of a typical hispanic immigrant into the US which are majority dark skinned and poor. It is not racist to state this - it is a fact. Just as I am white skinned and Irish. Someone who points this out is not a racist. Again, do you know what being racist means?

Honestly, you are making statements with no facts to back them up and just plain making stuff up.

homeOwner

lazydaisy wrote:

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.

Go to the south and try telling them that they are wasps. You dont have to be american to see the demographics and cultural makeup of your country. It is not patronising to state facts - you seem to not know what patronising means.

Learning english does not make one a wasp.

I never said that all hispanics are dark skinned and poor. I was giving an example of a typical hispanic immigrant into the US which are majority dark skinned and poor. That is a fact.

Honestly, you are making statements with no facts to back them up and just plain making stuff up.

homeOwner

lazydaisy wrote:

Psi- sorry you're right- it was homeowner who made the bigoted remarks about hispanics.

EXCUSE ME! Bigoted remarks? Tell me what is bigoted about anything I said.

The majority of hispanic immigrants into the US are dark skinned and poor. Just as I am white skinned and Irish. Someone who points this out is not a bigot. Do you know what the word bigot means? I'll tell you - its some one who is intolerant of opinions that differ from their own and who is prejudiced against people who have these different beliefs. Get a dictionary if you are going to make accusations about me - at least be accurate.

Mods - I realls object to being called a bigot by lazydaisy for absolutely no reason.

Zombrex

This is getting a bit off the topic, but I would just point out that WASPs and Hispanics are the same race (not that race really exists, but thats another issue), they are both Western European, and using the skin colour classification of race, they are both "white"

Wibbs

^^ Very true. How Spanish became "non white" is a bit beyond me. I remember an interview with that Antonio Banderas bloke who was bemused that all of his life he thought of himself white(when he thought about it at all) only to be told in America he was labelled"Hispanic". I could just about understand if some bloke whose ancestors were Inca was considered non European, but c'mon. Hell, I know pale, red haired, freckled Spaniards. That's as "white" as it gets.:D I also know some dark Irish types too. WTF does that make them? Weird ain't in it.

homeOwner

Wicknight wrote:

This is getting a bit off the topic, but I would just point out that WASPs and Hispanics are the same race (not that race really exists, but thats another issue), they are both Western European, and using the skin colour classification of race, they are both "white"

and you are right.
hispanics are predominantly catholic while wasps are, obviously, protestant. On second thought, my earlier referal to "dark-skinned hispanics", is not relavant, what I should have said was simply "hispanic". if you are referring to my posts in your reply, i was trying to point out that simply by learning english does not make you like a wasp which is what the previous poster had claimed.

Karl Hungus

Could someone please alleviate my ignorance, and tell me what the term "Wasp" means in this context?

CJhaughey

White. Anglo-Saxon, Protestant

homeOwner

^^^ what he said.

w66w66

According to the CIA fact book there are three predominant ethnic groups in Mexico. 30% are predominantly Indian and 60% are Mestizos (white and Indian mixes). 9% are classified as white many of whom are part of the ruling class. In fact the president of Mexico vincente Fox had an Irish grandfather. As for Mexicans assimilating into American society, I’m sceptical of that claim for reasons as seen in these videos http://www.kirkbytv.com/Video/index.html
Although I must stress I have no idea how representative these people are of Mexicans in America, but there does seem to a growing movement in America advocating the return of certain parts of America to Mexico.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

And your answer is what? Use the US State Department instead ....

No, I was just pointing out that the US must feel it cannot check up on everyone so it tries to place some barriers in the way for people who it feels are more likely to be a security risk because they are a particular nationality. If the US can't manage it, how can we? So we still may need to effectively exclude people based only on nationality, which is not fair under your critera.

Wicknight wrote:

But it doesn't do anything except give a false sense of security. It is a politcal rather than security measure. Most (all if i'm not mistaken) of the 9/11 terrorist were legally in the country, had legal documents to be there. The British Underground bombers were British citizen, they could have gone to America quite easily if they had wanted to.

Yes, it does give a false sense of security to an extent. They are not secure but they are slightly safer than they would be without such measures IMO. A bit like a bike with a pretty crappy lock vs one with none at all. Realistically, what else can they do? They have to balance between security measures and the demands of the tourist industry, US universities, US employers and businesses etc.

Wicknight wrote:

What the difference between that and having a sizeable groups of native people sitting in a small country with crap infrastructure and no jobs? The social problems will be exactly the same. Have immigrants or not having immigrants will make very little difference if the economy goes completely tits up in 10 years. Except immigrants are currently stoping the economy going tits up right now.

No, the situation is worse IMO. I mean all societies are fractured along certain lines. Men/Women, rich/poor, rural/urban, left wing/right wing, religious/athiest, x religion/y religion. We come up with endless ways to divide ourselves. With sizeable immigration we introduce a new fault line (the "blow-ins" and the "natives") - maybe other ones due to the culture and religion of the immigrants also. We increase the probability of strife if other pressures like a bad economic situation come to bear.

Wicknight wrote:

I mean if you can't get a job you can't get a job. If I was unemployed I wouldn't really care if an Irish person or an Arab immigrant living here for ten years took the job I reallly really wanted. I would still want to bash his head in with a rusty pike.

That's good to know...

Anyway, about the ten years stuff I was messing and did a few quick calculations with excel.

If the population is 4 million with 200000 "non-nationals" in year 1 and if both sectors have a pop. growth rate of 1% p.a. and there is an additional 50000 net p.a. immigration each year then after 10 years, the population of the state is almost 5 million with ~ 750000 being the immigrants or their children.
If many of these people have a very different culture and have not assimilated very well and feel discriminated against etc, if there is not much mutual understanding and tolerance going on, I'd say we would be in big trouble.

Anyway, this whole situation is hypothetical.

Just saw this:
"Incidentally the correct Islamic method of stoning according to Sharia was similar to that advised by the Pharisees at the time of Jesus - the person was held fast in a fixed position, and a stone or rock that it took two men to lift (i.e. was heavier than one man could lift alone) was to be dropped to crush the head ... The point was that if someone really had to be executed, it was to be done swiftly, with as little torture as possible, and usually publicly so that no vindictive person could do further nasty things behind the scenes and get away with it."

That type of stoning (boulder dropped on your head) would be somewhat better, maybe better than the electric chair? Who knows? Don't want to think about it anymore really.:)

Wibbs

Yea great site w66w66. Check out some of the site holders "views". http://www.kirkbytv.com/index2.htm Ahhh, it brings a tear to the eye of even a right winger like me. I particularly love the "ungrateful allies" bit. Remember the Alamo and all that. Circle the wagons. They never attack at night you know....

The CIA handbook reference was just pure genius too. Do you get one free with every pack of Freedom flakes?

Wibbs

fly_agaric wrote:

No, the situation is worse IMO. I mean all societies are fractured along certain lines. Men/Women, rich/poor, rural/urban, left wing/right wing, religious/athiest, x religion/y religion. We come up with endless ways to divide ourselves. With sizeable immigration we introduce a new fault line (the "blow-ins" and the "natives") - maybe other ones due to the culture and religion of the immigrants also. We increase the probability of strife if other pressures like a bad economic situation come to bear.

Exactamundo.

Just saw this:
"Incidentally the correct Islamic method of stoning according to Sharia was similar to that advised by the Pharisees at the time of Jesus - the person was held fast in a fixed position, and a stone or rock that it took two men to lift (i.e. was heavier than one man could lift alone) was to be dropped to crush the head ... The point was that if someone really had to be executed, it was to be done swiftly, with as little torture as possible, and usually publicly so that no vindictive person could do further nasty things behind the scenes and get away with it."

That type of stoning (boulder dropped on your head) would be somewhat better, maybe better than the electric chair? Who knows? Don't want to think about it anymore really.:)

I also noted that in the time of jesus the stoning that's mentioned concerns a group of people. The "cast the first stone" bit kinda gives the game away. If there's a first stone, there must be others. Maybe I wasn't paying attention but I don't recall the line saying, "you pair who are trying to lift that big rock, are you without sin?" . Also what was neglected in all this were the 100 lashes proscribed before sentence of stoning is carried out. Also part of the whole stoning bit. Very "humane" I must say. Getting fried by a couple of 1000 volts seems strangely appealing by comparison, I must say. There's only one kind of getting stoned I wanna be a party to.

fly_agaric

Mecha/Aztlan/Communist/Progressive/Islamist alliance

That's good. Didn't he forget the French?

rsynnott

netwhizkid wrote:

Multiculturism is only thrash and if our own Irish culture and race is to survive we must preserve our identity and not be walked all over and rubbished by foreginers which will eventually lead to race riots ala France.

Oh, dear, do I detect a bit of Ireland Uber Alles? The Irish race, indeed.

And I find it interesting that people always think that our culture will be destroyed by immigration. What's worth keeping will be kept, what isn't will go. Cultures meet all the time; it's not exactly a first.

Wibbs

fly_agaric wrote:

Mecha/Aztlan/Communist/Progressive/Islamist alliance

That's good. Didn't he forget the French?

Nope, check out the views bit. You'll find the cheese eating surrender monkeys are represented.

w66w66

Found that video link on different website and I have no affiliation with the website’s political views which are irreverent to the point I was trying make, which is that I’m sceptical about the claim that Mexicans are assimilating. Although, if I had of viewed some of the content on the website I probably would of thought twice about putting the link up. Scary stuff.

Wibbs

w66w66 wrote:

Found that video link on different website and I have no affiliation with the website’s political views which are irreverent to the point I was trying make, which is that I’m sceptical about the claim that Mexicans are assimilating. Although, if I had of viewed some of the content on the website I probably would of thought twice about putting the link up. Scary stuff.

Point taken. They're a bit irreverent alright(sorry couldn't resist).

fly_agaric

Wibbs wrote:

I also noted that in the time of jesus the stoning that's mentioned concerns a group of people. The "cast the first stone" bit kinda gives the game away.

True.

tj-music.com

Maskhadov wrote:

personally im not in favour of mulitculturism. I think everyone should have their own culture but should be able to identify with Ireland and Irish culture and be able to call themselves Irish.

Multiculturism is not about sameness. It is about embracing diversity and learning from one another.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

True.

I am not up on the whole latest version of the Bible to be brought out (the New New Kings James), but I was not aware that the woman was being stoned in an Islamic court ... or that she was being stoned in any court for that matter ...

You are completely miss-understanding the passage in the Bible if you think it was simply about a woman being stoned.

Under Jewish law (and Islamic law) only a a Judge (or Lord) can order a person to be executed. It is also nearly impossible for a person to be found so guilty of adultary that they are to be executed (I think 4 independent people have to witness it). And if they are both the man and the woman are put to death.

But in the Bible only the woman was pulled before Jesus, and it was not done by a court. If these men were really looking for justice they could have pulled her in front of a court very easily and been done with it. It would have been pointless to pull her before Jesus because Jesus wasn't a Judge and could not order he execution.

The woman was also pulled into a temple to face Jesus. If she was really guilty that would have also been a big no no, since a guilty person is "unclean" and cannot be brought into a Temple.

The point of the story is that the Pharisees were testing Jesus, trying to trick him into ordering the death of a woman for adultry.

"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him."

The Pharisees wanted Jesus to break the law. If he had done he probably would have been arrested then and there. Jesus could not under the law order that she be killed, and doing so would have been a breach of the law. Also legally the crowd had no right to stone her anyway, and it is very doubtful that she was actually commited adultury.

Also Jesus does also not say "the first stone", he says "first cast a stone at her" ... one stone ...

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

When they leave and Jesus is with the woman he does not say "go and don't screw around with other men any more", he simply says "don't sin", which implied (along with other passages) that he knew it was a trap and this woman was innocent, and wished to allow the Pharisees to see the error of their ways (he could have had them all executed for bringing false charges against the woman).

The message "let him first cast a stone at her" doesn't mean yes she is guilty, cause Jesus knew she wasn't, but rather you shouldn't talk of sin without first looking at yourselfs and what you are doing right now

It means you are all sinning right now, and you have no justification to condemn this woman. And if that isn't the case go right ahead (Jesus doesn't say don't kill her, simply that you should only kill her if you ain't sinning, which he knew they all were)

Jesus called their bluff.

Yes the message by Jesus in the story was very powerful (and all that gay stuff). But if that event actually happened as it is described, it is likely that the crowd dropped their stones because they knew this woman was innocent and had failed to trick Jesus into ordering her death, not because they forgave her. She wasn't guilty in the first place.


Anyway, the story has very little to do with the actual legal preceedings of a Jewish court, or the legal method to carry out execution, except the point of the story is that it was because the stoning was illegal that it was wrong.

Oh and the verse doesn't actually mention multiple stones.

fly_agaric

^^Er...don't take this the wrong way but I'm not a biblical scholar (or any kind of scholar) so what Wibbs had posted seemed reasonable to me. If not - fair enough.

I had never considered the story in depth - the details of the exact laws of the time or the power games between Jesus and the Pharisees. I only understood it as an example of Jesus' compassion and that other biblical ideal of attending the beam in one's own eye before the mote in someone else's.

lazydaisy

Psi,

Why would I think that there is a lying conspiracy between hispanic communities in the US and the MLA census? I said I couldnt see anything to indicate who spoke it as a first langauge and who spoke it as a second language. People who speak spanish at home may speak it as either, or maybe for some its the first and others its the second. What am I grasping at? And I have no investment in it either way. You said that there are some counties in the US where English is not the first language and pointed to Miami as an example. Besides which, Im still not getting the relevancy of it.

Hispanics are not western European or necessarily white. Hispanics are from Latin America, Central America and some parts of the Carribbean. Whether you call this Western is another argument altogether given their complex populations and complex histories. [Before you jump all over me here, Im not sure the US should be called Western either, with its complex history] Spaniards are white and western European obviously. Hispanics are a mixture of races. Calling them dark and poor is racist, calling the ones who immigrated to the US dark and poor is also racist. The Cubans who came in the 70s were not all poor and dark just as the Venezuelans who are now in Miami are not all poor and dark. And dark is a relative term anyway. For example, my grandmother, a hispanic woman who settled in Ireland when she married an Irishman and raised her family there, was called black by her Irish neighhbors but hispanics and latin americans would consider her white.

As for WASPS and waspiness, yes it is the dominant culture. White Anglo Saxon Protestants. This is what most of the nation is. You can even look at what NYC and Hollywood manufacture and see this is what is proposed as the norm, even though neither locus of cultural production is in itself dominated by this constituency. I don't know why you find this so offensive. WASP is not exclusively northeastern. It does admittedly have class undertones to it however, and that is what keeps it specific. Also - I will repeat myself - I did not say IDENTICAL.

I dont know what patronising means? I make things up? I dont agree with you so Im making things up. So much for tolerance. Your basically calling me a liar. Nice.

Of course learning English does not make you a wasp. [That is not what I said. Should I call you a liar or just assume you misunderstood me?] But it is the first step toward assimiliation. Language shapes conciousness. Suil Eile? No?

rsynnott

lazydaisy wrote:

Language shapes conciousness. Suil Eile? No?

I was under the impression that this theory had been largely discredited?

lazydaisy

Has it? I wasnt aware of that.