Is Islam right for Ireland?

Captain Obvious

JohnMc1 wrote: »

A KKK reference. wow. I'm surprised. Its not like virtue signalers such as yourself having been using that when people don't goosestep to their narrative.

If the white cloak and mask fits ....

Odhinn

JohnMc1 wrote: »

So because some Syrians made it to Turkey we should ignore all the others that are coming over trying to claim Refugee status?

Another non-sequitur. Some 3.5 million. You've claimed that there is no refugee problem, yet there are millions of refugees, you imply that muslim countries don't take any in, yet they do.

Greyling

JohnMc1 wrote: »

So you're complaining about the rent prices going up [and food prices has been going up too] but you still want to take in more people and only strain our economy even more. I don't think you thought this through.

I'm not complaining about anything. House prices in Clonskeagh are always high. By your reasoning the natives should be running scared. They're not. Because most reasonable people aren't scared.

JohnMc1

Captain Obvious wrote: »

If the white cloak and mask fits ....

Well if the Hitler mustache fits you.

JohnMc1

Odhinn wrote: »

Another non-sequitur. Some 3.5 million. You've claimed that there is no refugee problem, yet there are millions of refugees, you imply that muslim countries don't take any in, yet they do.

Can you read? I never said that there wasn't a problem. I said most of them weren't legitimate refugees. And Turkey taking them in doesn't excuse Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle east for not taking them. They're some of the richest Countries in the world. They should be doing more to help.

JohnMc1

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Because its usually the biggest virtue signallers that want to run from the problem that they created.

Um... like who, for example?

I'm at a loss to think of who has set the precedence for that assumption.

Odhinn

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Can you read? I never said that there wasn't a problem. I said most of them weren't legitimate refugees. .

Of the 3.5 million Syrians in Turkey, how many do you think are "genuine" refugees?

JohnMc1 wrote: »

And Turkey taking them in doesn't excuse Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle east for not taking them. They're some of the richest Countries in the world. They should be doing more to help.

Jordan? Lebanon? Iraq? Egypt?

wexie

Odhinn wrote: »

Of the 3.5 million Syrians in Turkey, how many do you think are "genuine" refugees?

None clearly, they came to Turkey for the generous social welfare system :rolleyes:

I don't know why you still try Odhinn, we've certainly not always seen eye to eye but this thread is slowly descending into a racist circle jerk, with a few more reasonable voices.

I'm really only following this anymore cause I'm curious who's going to end up with the soggy biscuit.

Snake Plisken

JohnMc1 wrote: »

A KKK reference. wow. I'm surprised. Its not like virtue signalers such as yourself having been using that when people don't goosestep to their narrative.

I’d ignore him John he seems to have a problem understanding that Islam is a religon and not a race with his snide KKK comments!

Snake Plisken

Odhinn wrote: »

Another non-sequitur. Some 3.5 million. You've claimed that there is no refugee problem, yet there are millions of refugees, you imply that muslim countries don't take any in, yet they do.

Hey Nodin how come the wealthy Saudi states don’t, can you explain that to me? I mean they have 100,000 air conditioned tents in the city of Mina but they won’t accept Syrian refugees.

Captain Obvious

Snake Plisken wrote: »

I’d ignore him John he seems to have a problem understanding that Islam is a religon and not a race with his snide KKK comments!

I hate to break it to you snakey boy but there is very little difference between judging a person based on their skin colour and judging a person based on their ethnicity, nationality or religious background. The same arguments you guys make have been made by hate groups for centuries and the same justifications and rationalisations ye use have been used to justify the hate. You can try and differentiate yourselves from those groups all ye want but you're only fooling yourself.

Odhinn

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Hey Nodin how come the wealthy Saudi states don’t, can you explain that to me? I mean they have 100,000 air conditioned tents in the city of Mina but they won’t accept Syrian refugees.

They have accepted some but Saudi and the gulf states being monarchies they don't want new subjects with notions about a more secular state, or, jaysus forbid, democracy. They have been generous with cash, however.

On the other side of it, none of the gulf states are a desirable location for non-conservative sunnis, shia, alawi, druze etc.

OneEightSeven

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I hate to break it to you snakey boy but there is very little difference between judging a person based on their skin colour and judging a person based on their ethnicity, nationality or religious background.

Sure there is. You can change your religion, but changing your skin colour, ethnicity and nationality can prove to be a lot more difficult. Religion is a choice, the others aren't.

That's a very significant difference and I doubt yous would show the same courtesy to member so f the church of Scientology. Islam is a very dangerous political ideology and its members should be treated with the same contempt we treat Marxists and Nazis.

OneEightSeven

Odhinn wrote: »

They have accepted some but Saudi and the gulf states being monarchies they don't want new subjects with notions about a more secular state, or, jaysus forbid, democracy. They have been generous with cash, however.

On the other side of it, none of the gulf states are a desirable location for non-conservative sunnis, shia, alawi, druze etc.

Nor are they desirable locations for doles-sponging migrants, hence the reason why they head towards the welfare states of Northern Europe.

Snake Plisken

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I hate to break it to you snakey boy but there is very little difference between judging a person based on their skin colour and judging a person based on their ethnicity, nationality or religious background. The same arguments you guys make have been made by hate groups for centuries and the same justifications and rationalisations ye use have been used to justify the hate. You can try and differentiate yourselves from those groups all ye want but you're only fooling yourself.

As your old pal eotr would say Nope you’re wrong!
And don’t call me boy! I

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I hate to break it to you snakey boy but there is very little difference between judging a person based on their skin colour and judging a person based on their ethnicity, nationality or religious background.

One of those is a choice, two of them are not. One of those causes fundamental divides and rifts, two of them do not. One of them has proven to be at odds with Western soceital norms at times, two of them have not.

Odhinn

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Nor are they desirable locations for doles-sponging migrants, hence the reason why they head towards the welfare states of Northern Europe.

Yet the vast majority haven't in fact headed there at all.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106859994&postcount=1336

Captain Obvious

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Sure there is. You can change your religion, but changing your skin colour, ethnicity and nationality can prove to be a lot more difficult. Religion is a choice, the others aren't.

That's a very significant difference and I doubt yous would show the same courtesy to member so f the church of Scientology. Islam is a very dangerous political ideology and its members should be treated with the same contempt we treat Marxists and Nazis.

First of all, you can change your nationality. But that aside, I said religious background. You can't change that. And there is no reliable way to ascertain someones religion. How do you know if the persons beliefs are the same as those they were indoctrinated into? I was baptised Catholic but I'd hate for people to assume I thought homosexuality was immoral.

Snake Plisken wrote: »

As your old pal eotr would say Nope you’re wrong!
And don’t call me boy! I

Good come back! :rolleyes:

Omackeral wrote: »

One of those is a choice, two of them are not. One of those causes fundamental divides and rifts, two of them do not. One of them has proven to be at odds with Western soceital norms at times, two of them have not.

Well, no, one isn't a choice. Your religious background is generally not your choice as it is chosen for you when you are a child. Now you are right that you can change your religion when you are old enough to understand it but after a decade and a half of indoctrination it is not a simple thing to choose.

But even if you disregard all that, how do you ascertain what a persons religious beliefs are? The only way to know for sure is to ask them and hope they tell the truth. It's not a feasible filtering method now is it? So they go with nationality, ethnicity and race instead.

Odhinn

Omackeral wrote: »

One of those is a choice, two of them are not. One of those causes fundamental divides and rifts, two of them do not. One of them has proven to be at odds with Western soceital norms at times, two of them have not.

But you're automatically assuming that "muslim" stands for conservative wahabi, or militant jihadist, hence the problem.

Wibbs

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Now you are right that you can change your religion when you are old enough to understand it.

True. Except in more than a few Islamic countries where leaving that faith is punishable by imprisonment, even death.



Even in the West, that some apparently hold isn't so great an all, but religious freedom is protected in law, public apostasy of Muslims has incurred death threats, fatwas and actual murders.

Captain Obvious

Wibbs wrote: »

True. Except in more than a few Islamic countries where leaving that faith is punishable by imprisonment, even death.



Even in the West, that some apparently hold isn't so great an all, but religious freedom is protected in law, public apostasy of Muslims has incurred death threats, fatwas and actual murders.

So are you in agreement that it is akin to judging someone by their race, in those countries anyway? You are born into it and cannot change it.

Wibbs

Odhinn wrote: »

But you're automatically assuming that "muslim" stands for conservative wahabi, or militant jihadist, hence the problem.

Not everyone in The Bad Old Days of Catholic Ireland™ was in the clergy, or a craw thumper and daily communicant. Most were just go to mass of a Sunday Catholics and yet all it required for the nutters to continue was the turning of blind eyes or nebulous approval or a lack of condemnation. Traits found in many Muslim enclaves throughout Europe. The surveys that have been done in the UK, France and Holland show a minority holding extreme views but a much larger minority holding quite a few views that go against the liberal west they live in. In such communities there's an even bigger pressure not to give up "one of their own" to the wider culture.

Understandably too. Ghettoisation doesn't just exist geographically, it also exists in the culture and the mind. This is not the "fault" of immigrant populations, nor is it the "fault" of the wider society. At least not always and fingers can point in all directions. It is in my opinion the fault of the theory of multiculturalism in modern liberal western societies. Where multiculturalism has worked in the past, it was always under a wider society that was extremely strong in self worth and extremely reactive to any dissension from the mores and traditions of that society. EG Rome, the Chinese empire, the first few centuries of the Islamic empire.

Captain Obvious wrote:

So are you in agreement that it is akin to judging someone by their race, in those countries anyway? You are born into it and cannot change it.

Eh wut? That's what you took from that? The part that those cultures view personal religious choice as something that is worthy of punishment just passed you by eh? Jesus, you're like a dog with a bone, looking to pin waaacism on everything and everyone, while studiously, to the point of wilful obduracy avoiding the bloody point.

Captain Obvious

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh wut? That's what you took from that? The part that those cultures view personal religious choice as something that is worthy of punishment just passed you by eh? Jesus, you're like a dog with a bone, looking to pin waaacism on everything and everyone, while studiously, to the point of wilful obduracy avoiding the bloody point.

You accept that people can't choose what religion they are born into and you accept that it is difficult and, in some cases, a death sentence to change their religion yet you attribute some kind of choice to them anyway. Did you also believe gay people chose for homosexual acts to be illegal in Ireland? After all, that was the culture.

Wibbs

Me. Just Now. wrote:

while studiously, to the point of wilful obduracy avoiding the bloody point.

Omackeral

Odhinn wrote: »

But you're automatically assuming that "muslim" stands for conservative wahabi, or militant jihadist, hence the problem.

Don't tell me what I assume, especially when I haven't assumed anything.

Omackeral wrote: »

One of them has proven to be at odds with Western soceital norms at times, two of them have not.

I specifically said ''at times'', as in not always, not automatically.

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So are you in agreement that it is akin to judging someone by their race, in those countries anyway? You are born into it and cannot change it.

That's the caveat then isn't it?! When they're here, they're free to leave!

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Did you also believe gay people chose for homosexual acts to be illegal in Ireland? After all, that was the culture.

.

Captain Obvious

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah, I figured you'd avoid it.

Omackeral wrote: »

That's the caveat then isn't it?! When they're here, they're free to leave!

But were we not talking about immigration? I can they change when they are here if you are stopping them from coming here because they haven't changed?

Omackeral wrote: »

.

You, Snake and Wibbs should just pool your posts and save bandwidth. When you can't address a point just keep going for the poster.

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But were we not talking about immigration? I can they change when they are here if you are stopping them from coming here because they haven't changed?

I was speaking with the thread title in mind. You can change your religion here, without being stoned to death or whatever the method of the week is in those backward lands. It tied into the point where people said you can change your religion but not your ethnicity.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You, Snake and Wibbs should just pool your posts and save bandwidth. When you can't address a point just keep going for the poster.

You are literally name checking posters and insulting them while complaining about attacking the posters rather than posts?! Seriously?! Pot kettle blah blah allah akbar

Hector Savage

Odhinn wrote: »

They have accepted some but Saudi and the gulf states being monarchies they don't want new subjects with notions about a more secular state, or, jaysus forbid, democracy. They have been generous with cash, however.

On the other side of it, none of the gulf states are a desirable location for non-conservative sunnis, shia, alawi, druze etc.

They've also been generous in offering to build 100s of new Mosques in Germany - Saudi wahabi funded Mosques - I mean what could possibly go wrong there ?

The Saudis, a great bunch of lads !

Captain Obvious

Omackeral wrote: »

I was speaking with the thread title in mind. You can change your religion here, without being stoned to death or whatever the method of the week is in those backward lands. It tied into the point where people said you can change your religion but not your ethnicity.

You're right, you can. But why would you if people are just going to assume your beliefs based on your background?

Omackeral wrote: »

You are literally name checking posters and insulting them while complaining about attacking the posters rather than posts?! Seriously?! Pot kettle blah blah allah akbar

Who did I insult? Damn right I'm name checking posters. Am I not entitled to respond to ad hominem attacks? If you're best response is some meme or a full stop then I don't see why you shouldn't be called out on it.

Enochwasright

I believe that unchecked migration in huge numbers from any radically different culture will pose problems for the indigenous population, obviously Islam has never peacefully integrated in any western society and Islam it's self would need it's own enlightenment movement internally before frictionless integration into our western societies.

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Damn right I'm name checking posters.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

If you're best response is some meme then I don't see why you shouldn't be called out on it.

Hector Savage

Enochwasright wrote: »

I believe that unchecked migration in huge numbers from any radically different culture will pose problems for the indigenous population, obviously Islam has never peacefully integrated in any western society and Islam it's self would need it's own enlightenment movement internally before frictionless integration into our western societies.

I'd love to be wrong, but it will be very difficult to reform that religion, it's the Koran and the hadiths - they are the perfect word.

No new testament coming there ....

weisses

Enochwasright wrote: »

obviously Islam has never peacefully integrated in any western society

First post and you come up with that waffle .....

Enochwasright

weisses wrote: »

First post and you come up with that waffle .....

Of course if it's waffle as you say that would be very easy for you to show an example of any countries that seen its muslim population grow to a double digit percentage without causing misery, terrorist attacks and attempts to enforce their culture on the hosts?

Wibbs

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yeah, I figured you'd avoid it.

Good God man, have you no shame? You avoided my point entirely.

You, Snake and Wibbs should just pool your posts and save bandwidth. When you can't address a point just keep going for the poster.

Ah here now, let's climb down from that cross please. When someone's argument falls flat it's all too common to see in both "right" and "left" posters that what comes next are accusations of attacking them hoping to shut down the points they can't deal with. The next step is usually claims of ganging up, even pulling the big red handle of "bullying".

To be clear I've "gone for" your points, the vast majority of which boil down to suggesting racism everywhere and that there nothing to see as far as Islam and Europe is concerned. Even when clear examples are pointed out to you, you go on an avoidance run. Again.

Captain Obvious

Wibbs wrote: »

Good God man, have you no shame? You avoided my point entirely.

I was explaining why I considered the discimination being displayed as no different to racism. I explained that religious background cannot be changed and that technically you could change your religion when old enough to understand. Your point was this.

those cultures view personal religious choice as something that is worthy of punishment

So, although you were attempting to just throw in another "muslims are bad" point, you actually helped prove my point at how difficult it is to change the religion you are born into.

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah here now, let's climb down from that cross please. When someone's argument falls flat it's all too common to see in both "right" and "left" posters that what comes next are accusations of attacking them hoping to shut down the points they can't deal with. The next step is usually claims of ganging up, even pulling the big red handle of "bullying".

Don't worry Wibbs. I'm not afraid of ganging up. I just thought if ye worked closer together ye might be able to fashion up a good counter point to my posts instead of just going on about how terrible muslims are.

Wibbs wrote: »

To be clear I've "gone for" your points, the vast majority of which boil down to suggesting racism everywhere and that there nothing to see as far as Islam and Europe is concerned. Even when clear examples are pointed out to you, you go on an avoidance run. Again.

No you haven't. But I'll ask my main question again. What kind of process would you implement to stop the spread of Islam in Ireland? The only answer so far has been from a poster who suggested people be required to take an oath when entering the country.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But I'll ask my main question again. What kind of process would you implement to stop the spread of Islam in Ireland? The only answer so far has been from a poster who suggested people be required to take an oath when entering the country.

Well, actually quite a few suggestions have been given throughout the thread but were dismissed out of hand as being 'unfair'.

However, I'll put in my own two cents. Firstly, I would have them legally acknowledge that western culture would remain dominant and it would be expected that they would live by our customs/laws in public rather than their own. Which means no religious dress which covers the face (covered hair being fine), no expectation of non-muslims to conform to their perceptions of modesty (modesty gangs), and that Sharia law/court has absolutely no place in western countries. They're welcome to do all of those things in their own country, but not in Europe.

The smaller issues like Halal meat or such should be dealt with on a personal level the same way that parents deal with allergies here. There should be zero expectation for Europeans to change our own ways to cater to them.

To be honest, I'm of the mind that we have immigration laws and a culture based on integration, similar to other countries outside of the West. Where you, the migrant, are here and will accept our laws/customs completely (in public), and if you don't, then you're welcome to leave for a country that does appreciate your cultural values already. Just as I would be told to leave if I couldn't accept Islamic culture in Iran.

I don't believe that the solutions need to be overly complicated. Lay out the ground rules, and when/if they break them, expel them from Europe with a lifelong ban from returning.

And since quotas are all the rage in seeking 'equality', let's put in place strict quotas in countries based on the numbers of migrant muslims (or any foreign ethnic/religious grouping) versus the native population (keeping the percentages low, and the native population higher), and should the quotas be reached, then no more migrants are to be allowed there. Welcome to apply for areas where the quotas haven't been reached but prevent the increasing of the quota just because there are more people want in.

Now... before you run amok ripping what I just said apart, perhaps you'll answer my main question. What makes you think that Ireland will not suffer the same problems as Europe while engaging in the same behavior that Europe has? (Being welcoming, providing support, etc)... [Specifics would be appreciated] and secondly, what do you propose to stop the conflict spreading to Ireland?

Enochwasright

I have noticed a trend with those of a liberal mindset, first they agitate for unrestricted immigration from group x, when people voice their concerns and fears they downplay them and accusations of racist and ism's etc follow then when there is absolute evidence that group x is not integrating well and causing carnage the liberal then changes tact to say "well they are here now so we can't do anything about It!"

murphthesmurf

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So, although you were attempting to just throw in another "muslims are bad" point, you actually helped prove my point at how difficult it is to change the religion you are born into.

As we have established, Islam is overwhelmingly anti womens rights, Sharia law is barbaric to say the least, Islam teaches that gays should be killed etc. So should we allow Muslims into Ireland knowing that they are highly unlikely to leave these beliefs behind? As you have said above, it is extremely difficult to leave the religeon you are born into for people from that part of the world. We in the west manage it without any problems as deep down most of us know it's all nonsense. Muslims however follow Islam unquestionably. I watched a video recently featuring various clips where a radio presenter and TV guest (I forget his name, Najeed I think) was attempting to get various callers and guests to admit that the stoning of women for adultery was wrong. None of them could do it, the only answer he could get was that they would have to consult with a cleric. Now the interviewer himself is Muslim, and he could could say unquestionably that it was wrong, so it is unfair to tar all Muslims this way. But none of the callers or guests in the compilation could do the same.
How can we tell the few who will leave behind these beliefs from the majority that will not? We can't, so in the interests of self preservation I have no problem in saying no, Islam is not right for Ireland.
As for your next question 'where do I get that the majority will not leave these beliefs behind?'. Life experience, I have known many more Muslims than most of you ever will. I grew up in an area with a high Muslim population, which is now predominantly Muslim. I went to both junior school and senior school with high numbers of Muslims in both. I have worked with Muslims and was around them my whole life. Can I provide links blah blah blah, no.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, actually quite a few suggestions have been given throughout the thread but were dismissed out of hand as being 'unfair'.

However, I'll put in my own two cents. Firstly, I would have them legally acknowledge that western culture would remain dominant and it would be expected that they would live by our customs/laws in public rather than their own. Which means no religious dress which covers the face (covered hair being fine), no expectation of non-muslims to conform to their perceptions of modesty (modesty gangs), and that Sharia law/court has absolutely no place in western countries. They're welcome to do all of those things in their own country, but not in Europe.

The smaller issues like Halal meat or such should be dealt with on a personal level the same way that parents deal with allergies here. There should be zero expectation for Europeans to change our own ways to cater to them.

To be honest, I'm of the mind that we have immigration laws and a culture based on integration, similar to other countries outside of the West. Where you, the migrant, are here and will accept our laws/customs completely (in public), and if you don't, then you're welcome to leave for a country that does appreciate your cultural values already. Just as I would be told to leave if I couldn't accept Islamic culture in Iran.

I don't believe that the solutions need to be overly complicated. Lay out the ground rules, and when/if they break them, expel them from Europe with a lifelong ban from returning.

And since quotas are all the rage in seeking 'equality', let's put in place strict quotas in countries based on the numbers of migrant muslims (or any foreign ethnic/religious grouping) versus the native population (keeping the percentages low, and the native population higher), and should the quotas be reached, then no more migrants are to be allowed there. Welcome to apply for areas where the quotas haven't been reached but prevent the increasing of the quota just because there are more people want in.

Now... before you run amok ripping what I just said apart, perhaps you'll answer my main question. What makes you think that Ireland will not suffer the same problems as Europe while engaging in the same behavior that Europe has? (Being welcoming, providing support, etc)... [Specifics would be appreciated] and what do you propose to stop the conflict spreading to Ireland?

I've already addressed that question. I believe it assumes France has issues as a direct result of Muslim immigration, an assumption I do not agree with. Maybe you could clarify what problems exactly you are referring to and how you think they will come about in Ireland.

As to your post, all you're suggesting is quotas based on religion and ethnicity. I don't consider that much different to racism myself but, tell me, how would you ascertain someones ethnicity or religion in order to decide whether they are let in?

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I've already addressed that question. I believe it assumes France has issues as a direct result of Muslim immigration, an assumption I do not agree with. Maybe you could clarify what problems exactly you are referring to and how you think they will come about in Ireland.

As to your post, all you're suggesting is quotas based on religion and ethnicity. I don't consider that much different to racism myself but, tell me, how would you ascertain someones ethnicity or religion in order to decide whether they are let in?

So, rather than actually answer my question (deflecting instead) or address the points I made, you skip everything to remark on the quotas as a measure of racism, and...

Useless. Forget it.

Rory28

Deleted User wrote: »

So, rather than actually answer my question (deflecting instead) or address the points I made, you skip everything to remark on the quotas as a measure of racism, and...

Useless. Forget it.

It is maddening. Hard to have a discussion when they nitpick at points instead of answering direct questions.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

So, rather than actually answer my question (deflecting instead) or address the points I made, you skip everything to remark on the quotas as a measure of racism, and...

Useless. Forget it.

I've explained this numerous times. It's a loaded question. I don't agree with the premise it's based on so I can't answer it reasonably. How is that so difficult to understand?

As to the racism, I've also explained multiple times why I see no difference between your kind of discrimination and racism. The only counter to it has been that you can choose your religion. Yet the same people arguing that have also been saying that the religion is very hard to break away from. A contradictory stance at the best.

Omackeral

I’m not even shocked at this “point” being made by Captain Obvious. You seem almost celebratory that people can’t leave Islam in backwards lands for fear of violent retribution as if it somehow proves your point. How does this barbaric mindset make Islam right for Ireland then, a la the thread title, if that’s the type of mindset we’d be bringing in?

Captain Obvious

Omackeral wrote: »

I’m not even shocked at this “point” being made by Captain Obvious. You seem almost celebratory that people can’t leave Islam in backwards lands for fear of violent retribution as if it somehow proves your point. How does this barbaric mindset make Islam right for Ireland then, a la the thread title, if that’s the type of mindset we’d be bringing in?

Nobody has said Islam is right for Ireland. In fact, the overall consensus seems to be that religion in general is not right for Ireland. The conversation moved on to how to prevent Islam spreading in Ireland.

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Nobody has said Islam is right for Ireland. In fact, the overall consensus seems to be that religion in general is not right for Ireland. The conversation moved on to how to prevent Islam spreading in Ireland.

I dare you to say the following outright in 6 simple words and say nothing else: “Islam is not right for Ireland”

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I've explained this numerous times. It's a loaded question. I don't agree with the premise it's based on so I can't answer it reasonably. How is that so difficult to understand?

Because it's a cop out. It's really that simple considering the line of your 'argument', although I can't quite see an actual argument since you refuse to make a stand except to shoot at everyone else's posts.

As to the racism, I've also explained multiple times why I see no difference between your kind of discrimination and racism.

By your logic, any limitation on Islamic Immigration is racist regardless of how it is determined. Which cuts out limiting numbers, and in turn, (by the same logic) any suggestion of placing legal restrictions on Muslims within Europe, would also be racist... therefore preventing any measures to reduce the cultural frictions. But then, you don't believe there is any friction between Europeans and Muslims in Europe, and it all relates to unmentioned factors in the 'other' category.

So, basically, you're standing on the railing pissing on everyone's suggestions.

As I said, useless. Ok. You've convinced me that you're just as bad as the nutjobs with the far right ideas on this thread.

Captain Obvious

Omackeral wrote: »

I dare you to say the following outright in 6 simple words and say nothing else: “Islam is not right for Ireland”

Islam is not right for Ireland. No religion is right for Ireland.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it's a cop out. It's really that simple considering the line of your 'argument', although I can't quite see an actual argument since you refuse to make a stand except to shoot at everyone else's posts.

It's not a cop out. Your question assumes there is an issue in Europe caused by Muslim immigration doesn't it? I don't believe that. So how can I answer a question with that as it's premise?

Deleted User wrote: »

By your logic, any limitation on Islamic Immigration is racist regardless of how it is determined. Which cuts out limiting numbers, and in turn, (by the same logic) any suggestion of placing legal restrictions on Muslims within Europe, would also be racist... therefore preventing any measures to reduce the cultural frictions. But then, you don't believe there is any friction between Europeans and Muslims in Europe, and it all relates to unmentioned factors in the 'other' category.

Yes, I do not agree with any kind of quota or restriction based on race/ethnicity/religion/nationality/gender/sexual orientation. I don't agree with them when they are used against the individual or in their favour (i.e. affirmative action).

Deleted User wrote: »

So, basically, you're standing on the railing pissing on everyone's suggestions.

As I said, useless. Ok. You've convinced me that you're just as bad as the nutjobs with the far right ideas on this thread.

I'm sorry you are so upset by disagreement.