Migration Megathread

Timberrrrrrrr

SnakePlissken wrote: »

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?



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.

Sounds like ireland not so long ago.

SnakePlissken

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Sounds like ireland not so long ago.

Did Ireland become more tolerant by denying the major issues with Catholic dogma? No it did not, Ireland is as it is now because we as a nation demanded discourse on Catholicism's failings, yet now we have folk who will not dare speak of Islam's failings for the fear of offending.

Had there been more people in 70s/80s Ireland all too afraid to criticise religion, we would still be living in a far less tolerant society today.

James Brown

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Did Ireland become more tolerant by denying the major issues with Catholic dogma? No it did not, Ireland is as it is now because we as a nation demanded discourse on Catholicism's failings, yet now we have folk who will not dare speak of Islam's failings for the fear of offending.

Had there been more people in 70s/80s Ireland all too afraid to criticise religion, we would still be living in a far less tolerant society today.

I believe Ireland became more tolerant, or evil, depending on your personal beliefs, due to the will of the majority changing and breaking down oppressive barriers in place.
The trouble you seem to be having is you are fearful of a continuation but with elements you might disagree with. You've more in common with 1950's Fianna Fail Catholic Ireland than you might like to think as it seems you don't like nor want change, unless it's your kind of change. That's not how free societies work.
I can't see a society still very much under the yoke of the Catholic Church, diving into same under another religion.

satguy

I am starting to think, that in my lifetime, I might just see those rivers Enoch promised us.

I'm 56 now and have seen changes that I never ever expected to see, I don't really want to live in a world where Enoch was right.
But the more tightly you pack a powder keg, the more dangerous a spark becomes.

SnakePlissken

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I believe Ireland became more tolerant, or evil, depending on your personal beliefs.

If you believe gender equality and LGTB acceptance are evil according to personal beliefs, it is my opinion those personal beliefs do not belong in civilised society. That you are readily defending persons who possess said beliefs for fear of offending is deeply troubling.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

it seems you don't like nor want change, unless it's your kind of change.

You are absolutely correct, homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK in 1967, yet today, a majority of UK Muslims, this includes those born in the UK not exclusively migrants, believe that the laws should be changed so to criminalise homosexuality once more.

I find this desire utterly abhorrent, that you would compare me to

Matt Barrett wrote: »

1950's Fianna Fail Catholic Ireland

for not wanting such a change in law is infantile.

As you have demonstrated repeatedly when responding to my posts that you possess neither will nor desire to discuss Islam's homophobia I really cannot see any point in responding to you any further.

James Brown

SnakePlissken wrote: »

If you believe gender equality and LGTB acceptance are evil according to personal beliefs, it is my opinion those personal beliefs do not belong in civilised society. That you are readily defending persons who possess said beliefs for fear of offending is deeply troubling.

I agree but if 'civilised society' disagrees, that's pretty much it. If you disagree with civilised society, that's unfortunate, but you can't bend society to your will just because you might not like the way things are going.

SnakePlissken wrote: »

You are absolutely correct, homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK in 1967, yet today, a majority of UK Muslims, this includes those born in the UK not exclusively migrants, believe that the laws should be changed so to criminalise homosexuality once more.

They are free to hold that belief. I believe people should be free to believe what they like and if such a vote ever comes before me I'll vote against it.

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I find this desire utterly abhorrent, that you would compare me to for not wanting such a change in law is infantile.

You are advocating treating an entire people differently based on their beliefs. You are talking on how they may change society in a manner you don't like. That is were I draw comparisons to the dark(er) days of Irish society.

SnakePlissken wrote: »

As you have demonstrated repeatedly when responding to my posts that you possess neither will nor desire to discuss Islam's homophobia I really cannot see any point in responding to you any further.

I am happy to concede there are homophobic views. I have not denied such.
You are advocating treating an entire people differently because you don't like what their beliefs are. That's discrimination. You are happy to associate the same people with a terrorist group because that terrorist group claims to follow the same beliefs. I think that's dangerous and bringing in the kind of society you claim to be trying to save us from.

Midlife

SnakePlissken wrote: »

If you believe gender equality and LGTB acceptance are evil according to personal beliefs, it is my opinion those personal beliefs do not belong in civilised society. That you are readily defending persons who possess said beliefs for fear of offending is deeply troubling.

I agree with a lot of what you say.

For me a lot of what goes on in threads like this is basic Islamaphobia, but you have a really really good point in terms of our values and whether or not we want lots of people with backwards values affecting our minorities who have fought hard and suffered a lot to win even the basic legal equality that they now have.

However, where i have a problem is that this isn't just Islam. Every comment you have applies to India and a huge stretch of Africa and also lots of the Carribean. Basically the developing world minus S.America. Then other countries like russsia and Poland have legal same sex relationships but they are still heavily discriminited against. It is a particular problem with Islam though.

But then islam wasn't the most serious hardline religion till people basically ****ed with the middle east for decades, actually coming up on a century now.

Look, we are where we are. I don't deny that. Fundamentalism scares the **** out of people and rightly so.

But, if you look throughout the course of history, hard line religious violence is always a response to oppression or hopelessness. Deny people a voice or a say, a chance at peace and prosperity, and they go redefine whatever book they're into and find the answer there.

But I maintain that religion is a reflection of the state of the people, it does not drive them. Give people a chance at a decent life and they won't be interested in fundamentalism.

fash

Midlife wrote: »

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.

The wealth of countries with Islamic cultures is not correlated with religiosity- and religion f
does not decrease on increased wealth. Turkey is more religious today than 50 years ago; Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Malaysia are very religious and very or reasonably wealthy. Even Israel is more religious today than 50 years ago- with a growing population of orthodox. Your assumption that if a country/culture gets richer it gets less religious ( and therefore we won't face any problems) is based on a western and Christian-centric experience of history only.
Therefore it is wrong to assume that immigrants from an Islamic background with secularise at all - indeed the experience in many western countries has been that religiosity has increased among the migrants/citizens with an Islamic cultural background since the 1950's.

fly_agaric

From a long time reading and sometimes contributing to these sorts of threads about immigration (fears + dangers) in their various incarnations (probably back to our birthright citizenship referendum??) I think there's never going to be agreement on these issues. It goes to the heart of what people believe.

speaking as a person who'd be on the opposite/anti immigration side of the debate...

Broadly, the concept of restricting immigrants based on characteristics like what country they are from, what religion they are, how rich they are, what skills and education they have etc. is problematic for many people.
That happens in every country of course to different degrees, but the people who will always argue for "no further restrictions" deeply believe that it is wrong. They see it as one of the big structural problems with this world (like global wealth/power inequalities, the massive amounts of resources wasted on weapons etc).

The ideal is people should always be treated equally, certainly not discriminated against on such a fairly chance basis as where they were born. "We" happen to live on this arbitrary bit of earth called Ireland but there is nothing special about us that means we have any rights to put restrictions and bar those who also want to live on it [other than preventing danger to those already here by keeping violent criminals out etc].

It is similar to + has the same flaws as idealistic belief in possibility of a perfect libertarian society or communist state etc.
At least the goal of such equality is positive (unlike the ideologies I mentioned!) and it may even come to pass one day (supranational projects like the EU would be seen afterwards as a forerunner) but it fails contact with our imperfect reality and would still cause a lot of harm to try and implement it today.

puts away soapbox and shuts up...

weisses

SnakePlissken wrote: »

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.

You have issues with countries having their own laws and beliefs ... That is by definition intolerant ... Mental gymnastics wont change that

SnakePlissken

weisses wrote: »

You have issues with countries having their own laws and beliefs

Do keep up, this thread is about the concerns of those who do not wish to see these barbaric intolerable laws and beliefs gain traction in Europe.

Timberrrrrrrr

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Do keep up, this thread is about the concerns of those who do not wish to see these barbaric intolerable laws and beliefs gain traction in Europe.

But you think it's ok for you to preach your own intolerable beliefs.

SnakePlissken

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But you think it's ok for you to preach your own intolerable beliefs.

I'd rather remain proudly intolerant of homophobia and mysoginy than became a sheep who accepts these traits for fear of offending.

That you find my viewpoint on gender equality and LGBT rights, intolerable beliefs, says a great deal.

Timberrrrrrrr

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I'd rather remain proudly intolerant of homophobia and mysoginy than became a sheep who accepts these traits for fear of offending.

That you find my viewpoint on gender equality and LGBT rights, intolerable beliefs, says a great deal.

Nice twisting of what i said. You're no better than a homophobe you just disguise your bigotry for others better under the guise if fearmongering.

SnakePlissken

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nice twisting of what i said.

No twisting required, your unwillingness to condemn homophobia and misogyny is there for all to see.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're no better than a homophobe

What a disgusting comment, but then, considering your post history, I expect no better from you. In fact, the only reason why I haven't already put you on ignore alongside a similar poster who shan't be named is because I had hoped to see you mature from ad hominem replies toward others, as this is not to be, I'm really left with no other recourse, Ta Ta For Now.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

This thread is getting pretty heated, so this is a gentle injunction to dial it down a bit.

I think a lot of recent contributors to the thread would benefit by actually reading what the other person is saying and not responding by mischaracterising the other persons points.

Thanks

keane2097

I think the position of nearly everyone is that Islamic doctrine, like every other religion, has elements of it that are very nasty.

People are unwilling to make the leap to saying that the adherents of that religion are therefore nasty themselves, or that it's hopeless to think it will ever change.

This is largely because most of us have parents who grew up as adherents to a very nasty religion who weren't necessarily nasty themselves, and it proved very much correct to think it would ever change.

ancapailldorcha

Any more petty bickering will be met with a ban. Posts deleted.

Sand

Its interesting to note that with the withdrawal of the people trafficking efforts of the NGOs, deaths by illegal migrants across the Mediterranean has significantly dropped between 2015 and 2018, dropping from an estimated 3,770 to just 2,242 in 2018. The efforts of European governments to cut the NGO transit routes in the intervening years has saved 1,500 lives this year alone, and that is praiseworthy.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Its interesting to note that with the withdrawal of the people trafficking efforts of the NGOs, deaths by illegal migrants across the Mediterranean has significantly dropped between 2015 and 2018, dropping from an estimated 3,770 to just 2,242 in 2018. The efforts of European governments to cut the NGO transit routes in the intervening years has saved 1,500 lives this year alone, and that is praiseworthy.

Before you go 'using' any more statistics in your argument. Any chance you could address some of my many questions.

Five weeks and you can't explain a shocking misuse of statistics.

Please explain it, or simply give up and admit you were incorrect.

Now, I know I'll get either

A) silence

called stupid for not grasping the explanation in some way

Or

C) some attempt to change the topic


I believe you last one was 'you can't read a table that supports my view'. I mean what kind of response is that from a guy citing ESRI reports. You direct people vaguely towards the evidence and say 'either you get it or you don't but I give up'. That's the most obvious cop-out ever. How can anyone consider your comments ligitimate with that kind of response.

As I said then....

Midlife wrote: »

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.

I mean, if five weeks on you can't set someone straight with a simple explination, how can we put any stock in anything else you post here.

So please explain it.

You cited an ESRI report to say 'Non-EU migration is not economically positive'. What is your evidence? Not WHERE is your evidence. WHAT is your evidence.

SixtaWalthers

The exciting story, then why governments are not offering enough allowance to couples to deliver and raise their kids? Why would a woman have to do jobs to live better lives? If it is about population, then offer women some better economic and social facilities so you can think to have more kids.

pearcider

keane2097 wrote: »

I think the position of nearly everyone is that Islamic doctrine, like every other religion, has elements of it that are very nasty.

People are unwilling to make the leap to saying that the adherents of that religion are therefore nasty themselves, or that it's hopeless to think it will ever change.

This is largely because most of us have parents who grew up as adherents to a very nasty religion who weren't necessarily nasty themselves, and it proved very much correct to think it would ever change.

They are nothing alike. Catholic Ireland may have been intolerant of sex outside marriage etc but to compare it to the head choppers in Saudi Arabia requires the cognitive dissonance that you can only find among the cultural marxists that live safely in the west. You left wingers are forever comparing chalk and cheese in a desperate attempt to appease the obviously intolerant nature of Islam. You’d be thrown in prison with your attitudes if you lived in most Muslim countries.

The civilized west grew out of the Christian west. Take a look at the human development index. All the high countries are Christian. The lower down the list you find the Muslim countries. This is not a conincidence. Human rights barely exist in the Middle East except in israel.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Educate yourself.

Timberrrrrrrr

pearcider wrote: »

They are nothing alike. Catholic Ireland may have been intolerant of sex outside marriage etc but to compare it to the head choppers in Saudi Arabia requires the cognitive dissonance that you can only find among the cultural marxists that live safely in the west. You left wingers are forever comparing chalk and cheese in a desperate attempt to appease the obviously intolerant nature of Islam. You’d be thrown in prison with your attitudes if you lived in most Muslim countries.

The civilized west grew out of the Christian west. Take a look at the human development index. All the high countries are Christian. The lower down the list you find the Muslim countries. This is not a conincidence. Human rights barely exist in the Middle East except in israel.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Educate yourself.

Only if you are israeli, Arabs and immigrants of Arab decent are treated like dirt and lets not go down the rabbit hole of how they treat the palestinian people.

pearcider

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Only if you are israeli, Arabs and immigrants of Arab decent are treated like dirt and lets not go down the rabbit hole of how they treat the palestinian people.

There’s millions of Arabs living in Israel. You won’t find many Israelis living in Muslim countries though. Or if you do they are in hiding for fear of being kidnapped or beheaded. That tells me and most normal people everything you need to know.

Timberrrrrrrr

pearcider wrote: »

There’s millions of Arabs living in Israel. You won’t find many Israelis living in Muslim countries though. Or if you do they are in hiding for fear of being kidnapped or beheaded. That tells me and most normal people everything you need to know.

There's many Israelis living in muslim countries, on land they have illegally stolen and settled on. Please don't put israel on a pedestal of virtue in the middle east when they are the biggest terrorists in that region.

ninjarambohd

In my opinion people should have fewer children. I mean just look at the way the world is heading to. Everyday we wake up there is either war happening somewhere or murder.

Also look at the it this way. Look how we ourselves went through life as children. Waking up early, going to school, doing homework etc... then we grow up and face even more problems in life. Why would we want to have kids and have them go through the same thing as well?

Though that's my opinion maybe it's a bad one but I believe that having kids in this day and age is wrong.

MadYaker

ninjarambohd wrote: »

In my opinion people should have fewer children. I mean just look at the way the world is heading to. Everyday we wake up there is either war happening somewhere or murder.

Also look at the it this way. Look how we ourselves went through life as children. Waking up early, going to school, doing homework etc... then we grow up and face even more problems in life. Why would we want to have kids and have them go through the same thing as well?

Though that's my opinion maybe it's a bad one but I believe that having kids in this day and age is wrong.

Well if we stop breeding altogether we’ll go extinct. But I agree, people in developing countries especially should probably have less children.

Can’t say I’ve noticed a Muslim invasion in Galway tbh. How come nobody ever talks about the Eastern European invasion? There’s far more of them knocking around.

pearcider

SixtaWalthers wrote: »

The exciting story, then why governments are not offering enough allowance to couples to deliver and raise their kids? Why would a woman have to do jobs to live better lives? If it is about population, then offer women some better economic and social facilities so you can think to have more kids.

That’s the key question here. The sad fact is that western governments are anti family and have done much to destroy the family unit. It is much harder for the state to control a family unit than an individual. If you have all the kids in state crèches you can indoctrinate the children. Most Dictatorships figure that out early. The second reason is economics big business wants cheap labour. More women in the work force keeps wages lower than they would be.

Dannyriver

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Only if you are israeli, Arabs and immigrants of Arab decent are treated like dirt and lets not go down the rabbit hole of how they treat the palestinian people.

Thanks for that

Podge_irl

pearcider wrote: »

That’s the key question here. The sad fact is that western governments are anti family and have done much to destroy the family unit. It is much harder for the state to control a family unit than an individual. If you have all the kids in state crèches you can indoctrinate the children. Most Dictatorships figure that out early. The second reason is economics big business wants cheap labour. More women in the work force keeps wages lower than they would be.

Or perhaps women just want to work and not be stuck at home raising a family?