Migration Megathread

oscarBravo

SnakePlissken wrote: »

So you are conceding that Islam is not known for its tolerance for the LGBT community and women's rights...

Well, no. I'm pointing out logical flaws in your argument. But let's move on - and, yes, Islam - in common with most religions - is not known for its left-wing liberal values.

...why then would you claim your "Muslim friends" might find it so achingly funny as to someone's suspicions that they might share these same stone-aged views?

Because they're friends of mine. They're people. They're warm, funny, clever, interesting, intelligent, empathic, compassionate people, who happen to be adherents to a particular religion. And, like the vast majority of adherents to pretty much all religions, they don't slavishly live their lives according to the tenets of those religions.

We don't tend to judge Hindus or Sikhs by the actions of the least tolerant of their fellow religionists. We don't assume that all Jews are the sort of rampant misogynists who refuse to sit beside women on airplanes. We don't jump to the conclusion that everyone who goes to Mass is an advocate of forced childbirth. So if we judge Muslims by Islamist terrorists, we're guilty of hypocrisy on a breathtaking scale.

Let's bring this branch of the conversation back to where it started: recedite claimed that Muslims can't be citizens of the French Republic. Now, I personally consider that such a bizarre expression of naked bigotry that I'm mildly shocked that anyone would actually express it publicly.

Do you agree with him?

SnakePlissken

oscarBravo wrote: »

But let's move on - and, yes, Islam - in common with most religions - is not known for its left-wing values.

Let me just correct you first by clarifying; the fundamental belief in equality between genders and sexualities is not the exclusive domain of the left-wing.

oscarBravo wrote: »

recedite claimed that Muslims can't be citizens of the French Republic. Do you agree with him?

Of course I don't agree with him, what part of my posts lends itself to any presumption I possibly could be in agreement?

James Brown

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Let me just correct you first by clarifying; the fundamental belief in equality between genders and sexualities is not the exclusive domain of the left-wing.




Of course I don't agree with him, what part of my posts lends itself to any presumption I possibly could be in agreement?

So you'd let ISIS operate legally as a party in France? ...or do you see a difference between ISIS and Muslims not affiliated?
To push further, if a person believes something should they be criminalised for having a point of view most wouldn't agree with, but remaining within the law?
If I believe abortion is wrong and should be criminalised, am I to be vilified?

oscarBravo

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Let me just correct you first by clarifying; the fundamental belief in equality between genders and sexualities is not the exclusive domain of the left-wing.

It's not, no; but those are liberal values, and I'm not at all impressed with you sneakily editing that word out of your quote of my post.

Of course I don't agree with him, what part of my posts lends itself to any presumption I possibly could be in agreement?

He made a point; I took issue with him; you took issue in turn with me.

I'm happy to accept at face value your assertion that you don't share the level of blatant bigotry expressed by him, but you still seem to subscribe to the view of collegiate responsibility. Is that a view that you apply solely to Muslims, or should every adherent of every religion be forced to answer for the sins of the worst of their co-religionists?

SnakePlissken

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you'd let ISIS operate legally as a party in France?

What? That's possibly the most insane leap of logic I have yet read on this forum, in what way have I ever inferred such a bat**** insane viewpoint?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If I believe abortion is wrong and should be criminalised, am I to be vilified?

In my opinion? Yes.

You are free to believe it's wrong, you are free to find the concept unpalatable, you are free to judge and distance yourself from anyone who might hold opposing views, and you are even fully free to never partake in such a service as is your right, but when you place yourself as a moral authority who wishes to actually criminilise and imprison those who have fought for their right as to what they do with their own body or for having the audacity to have been born to be sexually attracted to the same sex, yes, you should be vilified.

I'm a live and let live type guy, I believe everyone should be free to follow whatever diety they so wish, I do not however, believe homophobia and mysoginy should ever be given a free pass under any religious guise.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's bring this branch of the conversation back to where it started: recedite claimed that Muslims can't be citizens of the French Republic. Now, I personally consider that such a bizarre expression of naked bigotry that I'm mildly shocked that anyone would actually express it publicly.

Do you agree with him?

Lets unpack that. The French Republic requires an almost religious belief in the universalist enlightment and above all secular values of the Republic. The Republic denies the existence of groups, even the French themselves as an ethnicity. It is therefore erroneous to describe France as French. The Republic is independent of the French and France. There is only the individual, and their loyalty to the Republic. Therefore the Republic refuses to collect data on ethnicity within the Republic - it is illegal by law to differentiate between citizens of the Republic. To the extent that the multiculturalism of France is measured, it is by reference to indirect indicators or mere guesstimates. So to be a citizen of the Republic requires a submission to the enlightenment values of the Republic.

Islam requires a submission to the will of Allah as laid out in the Koran. Is Islam secular? Has Allah been made President of the Republic? Is the Koran the constitution of the Republic?

But lets face it. Under the values of the Republic, who could not be a citizen of France?

Midlife

Midlife wrote: »

Could you answer some of my questions please?

Sand wrote:

- Non-EU migration is not economically positive. The employment rate for African nationals in particular is just 45%, and the unemployment rate is over twice the Irish rate. Their economic performance is not catching up with the Irish average. It actually worsened between 2016 and 2017.

How many times more can you post without justifying that comment?

Is seems as though you're trying to ignore this.

Anyway, at least you've got a friend who's equally assured that you're correct but can't explain to anyone why.

recedite wrote: »

His argument was correct and was backed up by the stats, it is dishonest of you to say otherwise.

Midlife wrote: »

Then please explain what 'not economically positive' means. After some time Sand said it's a relative term. I'm not so sure. 'Economically negative' or 'economicallly neutral' means that you are either losing money or breaking exactly even. I'mm not so sure how you can take another meaning from the phrase 'not economically positive'.

After then, please explain how a statistic on African unemployment means that non-EU migration is 'not economically positive'.

1 month now I've been asking for you to explain a simple sentence. We've had many many responses, insults directed towards me trying to inflame the situation, clarfiications on my questions, statements that you've already explained it, shifting of the parameters.

Now all we've got is another person who says the stats explain it but can't explain it themselves.

SnakePlissken

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not, no; but those are liberal values

Putting a word in italics does not an argument make, gender equality and the belief in LGTB rights is not exclusive to the Left-Wing as you wish to portray; actually a pretty shameful statement to even consider.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not at all impressed with you

I'm truly and sincerely devastated.

oscarBravo wrote: »

you still seem to subscribe to the view of collegiate responsibility.

What I subscribe to, is that when the majority of a selected peoples hold views that are intolerant to LGTB rights, as has been proven to be the case with UK Muslims, then the minority who do in fact share our Western Values, may well be wrongly prejudiced. But this same minority cannot be so disingenuous or naive as to pretend that Islam ideology is not woefully misogynistic and homophobic... perhaps I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected, as I'm sure you'd also love correcting me, perhaps you could give me some examples of Muslim majority nations which aren't slavish adherents to sexist homophobic dogma?

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Is seems as though you're trying to ignore this...1 month now I've been asking for you to explain a simple sentence.

For one month now, I've been waiting for you to be able to read a simple table. I'm comfortable my view is supported by the evidence I've cited, and I'm equally comfortable at this point that you cannot read that simple table. That is not my problem to solve.

kuro68k

The far right has been stirring this up for years, but take France as an example. Highest Muslim population in Europe. The most pessimistic projections suggest that by 2050 Muslims will be 15% of the French population.

15% by 2050. And that includes all the ones who put "Muslim" on the census but never actually got the mosque, drink and eat bacon. Like how the UK is more than 50% "Christian" on the census but only about 10% of people go to church, and only 5% regularly.

8-10

kuro68k wrote: »

The far right has been stirring this up for years, but take France as an example. Highest Muslim population in Europe. The most pessimistic projections suggest that by 2050 Muslims will be 15% of the French population.

15% by 2050. And that includes all the ones who put "Muslim" on the census but never actually got the mosque, drink and eat bacon. Like how the UK is more than 50% "Christian" on the census but only about 10% of people go to church, and only 5% regularly.

I'm surprised that they don't split denominations of Christians on the census.

weisses

SnakePlissken wrote: »

What I subscribe to, is that when the majority of a selected peoples hold views that are intolerant to LGTB rights, as has been proven to be the case with UK Muslims,

“keep your eyes open” about gay men entering seminaries and “If in doubt, better not let them enter.”

Pope Francis 2018

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

For one month now, I've been waiting for you to be able to read a simple table. I'm comfortable my view is supported by the evidence I've cited, and I'm equally comfortable at this point that you cannot read that simple table. That is not my problem to solve.

It's not a view.

'Non-EU migration is not economically positive'

Is not a view. It's a statement you made which is not factually true, or rather it may be factually true but to extrapolate it from the data you provided ius a complete misinterpretation.

The table you provided shows that some non-EU populations are less likely to be employed and more likely in some cases to be not in the labour force (students, stay at home, children etc)

You however have claimed that as a homogenous group, they're a financial burden on the country.

The report mentions employment rate, activity rate but it does not measure overall economic impact of non-eu nationals.

Additionally by any logic you have used to create your argument, you are addditionally forced to say that Asian immigration is pretty much the same as UK immigration as the only statistics the report provides for both populations are extremly similar.

So, yeah, stop dodging the question and either explain it to everyone or admit you are wrong. Because the table in the report doesn't show what you say it does. Anyone can see that.

SnakePlissken

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I'm glad you took the opportunity to use Wikipedia as it only reinforces my point; that homosexuality was rightfully decriminalised in England over a half a century ago, yet when polled, a majority of English Muslims disagree with this decision, shines a light on the ugly truth that is the Islam's views on the LGTB community.

SnakePlissken wrote: »

And now for some Catholic Church whataboutery in...

3


2


1

weisses wrote: »

What is the view of the pope ?

weisses wrote: »

Pope Francis 2018

Predictable. Your tiresome reluctance to discuss the thread title makes it a complete waste of my time responding to you any further.

DeadHand

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Predictable.

Christian anti-homosexual activities: Won’t let gay men enter seminaries. Won’t create a cake supporting a political campaign they peacefully disagree with.

Islamic anti-homosexual activities: Toss gay men from rooftops. Criminalize homosexuality (enforcing this readily with serious violence) where Islam holds sway, want it criminalized where it doesn’t.

Timberrrrrrrr

DeadHand wrote: »

Christian anti-homosexual activities: Won’t let gay men enter seminaries. Won’t create a cake supporting a political campaign they peacefully disagree with.

Islamic anti-homosexual activities: Toss gay men from rooftops. Criminalize homosexuality (enforcing this readily with serious violence) where Islam holds sway, want it criminalized where it doesn’t.

Gays in Nigeria face 14 years in prison. Its not just Muslims who are homophobic.

fly_agaric

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Gays in Nigeria face 14 years in prison. Its not just Muslims who are homophobic.

I do feel obliged to point out that Nigeria is not "Christian".
Most of our immigrants from there seem to be Christians, but afair the population is half muslim (and of course Nigeria has a nasty fundamentalist Islamic insurgency). Country has usually been led by a muslim too I think!:pac:
Which religion is most to blame for any anti-gay laws there? Personally I blame the Pope.:D

Timberrrrrrrr

fly_agaric wrote: »

I do feel obliged to point out that Nigeria is not "Christian".
Most of our immigrants from there seem to be Christians, but afair the population is half muslim (and of course Nigeria has a nasty fundamentalist Islamic insurgency). Country has usually been led by a muslim too I think!:pac:

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-22/arrested-for-being-gay-in-nigeria/9069350

In a country like Nigeria where 91 per cent of people believe homosexuality should be criminalised, his confession only led to more frequent and ferocious beatings from his father.

91% is a lot of christians too, also Goodluck Jonathon the prime minister who put harsh penalties for homesexuals is a christian, but yeah lets just focus on them bad muslims.

In 2014 former president Goodluck Jonathan signed a bill which proscribed penalties of 14 years' jail for same-sex marriage and 10 years' for same-sex "amorous relationships".

DeadHand

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Gays in Nigeria face 14 years in prison. Its not just Muslims who are homophobic.

My word, you wrecked that straw man, well done!

Absolutely no one said homophobia was exclusive to Muslims: the point of my post was illustrating the difference in scale and intensity between Islamic and Christian homophobia in the modern day.

Even the most ardent Islamophile would shy away from claiming LGBT types have a better or equally difficult time in Islamic societies than secular societies with Christian roots.

Glad you mentioned Nigeria though, a country torn apart by militant Islamism and the resultant religious violence. It looks much like parts of Europe likely will in a few generations time given migratory and demographic trends.

Boko Haram, coming to a street near you!

fly_agaric

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-22/arrested-for-being-gay-in-nigeria/9069350

91% is a lot of christians too, also Goodluck Jonathon the prime minister who put harsh penalties for homesexuals is a christian, but yeah lets just focus on them bad muslims.

Ah don't worry. I wouldn't want you to upset yourself. Just putting the correction out there that Nigeria is not actually a Christian country and the animus to gays there is not coming just from Catholic teaching, Protestant bible beaters etc (the familiar religious bogeys we love to hate in this country). Islam is also to blame for it.

edit: seeing as I know little about gays and Nigeria I went to wiki and found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Nigeria

The maximum punishment in the twelve northern states that have adopted Shari'a law is death by stoning. That law applies to all Muslims and to those who have voluntarily consented to application of the Shari'a courts. In southern Nigeria and under the secular criminal laws of northern Nigeria, the maximum punishment for same-sex sexual activity is 14 years' imprisonment.

Ah well, maybe the wiki page is wrong (wouldn't be the first time) or they just have the old Death by Stoning thing down as sort of a little legal joke/sop to the devout that they will never actually enforce! How quaint. It is exactly like our old blasphemy law really.

weisses

Most if not all religions have issues with LGBTQ

Paddling the Muslim are bad narrative in this context is silly and shortsighted

Eric Cartman

weisses wrote: »

Most if not all religions have issues with LGBTQ

Paddling the Muslim are bad narrative in this context is silly and shortsighted

most of those religions are in decline, as the western world moves to be more tolerant rates of christianity are falling, rates of fundamental christianity are tiny outside of the US , and even the pope and most christians are softening on LGBT issues and womens rights. Similar can be said for judaism. Islam is the only religion that is accelerating in uptake and still holding , if not strengthening its anti woman, anti lgbt, anti western views.

Bringing christianity into this debate is like asking the fire brigade to ignore a house where a fire is just getting going and spray water on a house that burned down a month ago.

MFPM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

most of those religions are in decline, as the western world moves to be more tolerant rates of christianity are falling, rates of fundamental christianity are tiny outside of the US , and even the pope and most christians are softening on LGBT issues and womens rights. Similar can be said for judaism. Islam is the only religion that is accelerating in uptake and still holding , if not strengthening its anti woman, anti lgbt, anti western views.

Bringing christianity into this debate is like asking the fire brigade to ignore a house where a fire is just getting going and spray water on a house that burned down a month ago.

If you stepped out of your Western centric mindset, perhaps you mightn't make such factually inaccurate statements!

Eric Cartman

MFPM wrote: »

If you stepped out of your Western centric mindset, perhaps you mightn't make such factually inaccurate statements!

I don't even quite understand what you mean. Its a well acknowledged fact that the western world is turning its back on christianity (or any religion really) but Islam is growing much faster than any other religion.

Midlife

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't even quite understand what you mean. Its a well acknowledged fact that the western world is turning its back on christianity (or any religion really) but Islam is growing much faster than any other religion.

Yeah but that's just because of the areas of the world it's in.

I mean are we saying anything beyond the fact that there's a correlation between poorer parts of the world and high birth rates. Also that they tend to be more religiously backwards?

This is exactly what was said about the Irish in America.

I think it's a bitunfair to put forward the assumption that islam is NOT like other religions, in that when you offer people of the Islamic faith peace and prosperity, they'll still continue to have as many kids as possible and eschew hard line right wing authoritarian values.

James Brown

SnakePlissken wrote: »

What? That's possibly the most insane leap of logic I have yet read on this forum, in what way have I ever inferred such a bat**** insane viewpoint?



In my opinion? Yes.

You are free to believe it's wrong, you are free to find the concept unpalatable, you are free to judge and distance yourself from anyone who might hold opposing views, and you are even fully free to never partake in such a service as is your right, but when you place yourself as a moral authority who wishes to actually criminilise and imprison those who have fought for their right as to what they do with their own body or for having the audacity to have been born to be sexually attracted to the same sex, yes, you should be vilified.

I'm a live and let live type guy, I believe everyone should be free to follow whatever diety they so wish, I do not however, believe homophobia and mysoginy should ever be given a free pass under any religious guise.

The point is if you are going to tar all Muslims with the terrorist brush you are looking to arrest or expel people based on their beliefs, or your understanding of their beliefs rather than punish criminal acts or organisations promising to carry out criminal acts. In the kind of society you seem to be claiming to protect there is no place for people with your opinion, unless you want to turn society into the very kind of society you are fearful of.
You don't strike me as a live and let live type of guy based on your attitude regarding people with a different set of beliefs to yourself how ever much you do or do not understand them.

SnakePlissken

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The point is if you are going to tar all Muslims with the terrorist brush

My issue with Islam is it's core belief system as to its views on gender equality and LGTB acceptance, not once have I even come close to tarring Muslims with the brush of terrorism as you so put it. This is a lazy argument from those such as yourself who clutch to the "Not all Muslims are terrorists" trope, as a way of shutting down discussion on Islam's demonstrably true disdain for equal rights.

There is not one Muslim nation that compares favorably to societies in the West when it comes to Gender Equality, why don't you wish to discuss this?

There is not one Muslim majority nation that compares favorably to societies in the West when it comes to LGTB acceptance, why don't you wish to discuss this?

A majority of polled UK Muslims wish for homosexuality to be criminalized, why don't you wish to discuss this?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You don't strike me as a live and let live type of guy based on your attitude regarding people with a different set of beliefs to yourself

As an LGTB campaigner, and fervent supporter of gender equality I will never tolerate the intolerant, that persons such as yourself do so for fear of being labelled racist is indicative of our weak willed, millennial society.

It also must be said, this is the most insanely illogical post I've yet read on Boards.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you'd let ISIS operate legally as a party in France?

weisses

SnakePlissken wrote: »

There is not one Muslim nation that compares favorably to societies in the West when it comes to Gender Equality, why don't you wish to discuss this?

There is not one Muslim majority nation that compares favorably to societies in the West when it comes to LGTB acceptance, why don't you wish to discuss this?

Why are you so intolerant to countries that are not in line with your values ?

You wanna be like the US and bomb them into submission ?

SnakePlissken

weisses wrote: »

You wanna be like the US and bomb them into submission ?

Yes, that's exactly what I stated isn't it? :rolleyes: I suppose it's somewhat of an improvement over your repetitive whataboutery as regards the Pope.

FreudianSlippers

SnakePlissken wrote: »

[...] indicative of our weak willed, millennial society.

Everyone under 35 a millennial; I'd suggest that the world is a worse place because of everyone who is not a millennial.