What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

Wibbs

MarkEadie wrote: »

Good Post. The part about kids is very true. There were two mixed race guys in my class through school and they were popular nice guys everyone liked so it was a group where nobody in the area was racist. If you've had a friend of a different nationality as a child and bonded with them that is sufficient I'd say. And that's whats happening. In most schools today there will be different nationalities getting along in class, playing football together, hanging around together, dating each other etc. It's easy to see how attitudes would differ from the ones displayed by a few middle aged single men on here, who can't see their views are in the minority anyway. It's a different generation coming through and another one after that and so on. That's a big factor that is overlooked.the attitude of the new generations towards other nationalities etc will be world's apart.

If this were the case then how come France, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany who have all had generations of multiculturalism still have cultural flashpoints, accusations of systemic racism(often warranted) and the same narratives being played out in the successes or failures of their non native demographics? And that's before we look at multicultural nations in the rest of the western world. In Ireland after only two decades of it we're already seeing the same well trodden paths being followed.

I can't help but notice too, the all too usual "minority" of "middle aged single men" dig you threw in, when what passes for your argument in favour is the same exoticism fetish and naive kumbaya wishful thinking that somehow, this time, in this place, it will be somehow different has little enough to back it up in reality. I can at least understand the hope in the latter, but history and current affairs with a seasoning of reality would tend to disagree with you. The former is more of the same we have come to expect from many, if not sadly the majority of the more hardcore flagwavers for multiculturalism.

Swindled

The dream : The Village People
The reality : Rotherham, Bradford, and Balbriggan

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

It is our values that ensure that such behavior does not become acceptable here.

Indeed, and those values are remarkably delicate. They're not written in stone by any means, though those living in a culture are usually pretty sure, worse, complacent about the values they have, negative or positive are correct and will last. The crawthumpers of 1950's Ireland busy kissing the bishop's ring while polishing rosary beads thought their values were the correct ones and would endure and yet their grandchildren upended them wholesale and that change was rapid. Oh and for the short term memory revisionists out there it's those "middle aged" and older types that were the vanguards of that.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

Western culture, including Ireland, places importance on the equality of the sexes.

A few hundred years back, "western" cultures were burning women at the stake for being witches. Much more recently women were being denied basic equality such as being able to keep their job after becoming parents. Basing your entire defense of the west on the west's enduring defense of women's rights is a losing proposition.

What even is the "west"? Is Australia part of the "west" despite being on roughly the same longitude as Japan?

Yes, values and customs do change over time. However, there are foundational/fundamental values within western culture, that has been due to social movements to generate the distinctive differences between our way of thinking, with that of most foreign countries.

Do you think that Ireland will ever decide that women should lose all the rights they currently have and become second class citizens again? If not, then...

Different peoples have different historical experiences. If Ireland continues to bring in different peoples, then those peoples may indeed impose different values over those of the Irish.

Huh? Where are you getting this from? Where have I ever suggested such a thing?

Then you're only committed to losing slowly. My advice to you would be to fully commit to open borders and just endorse the consequences.

Values matter.

They don't. They change like the wind.

They're a core part of our culture,

They aren't.

and it shows a distinctive difference with other cultures/nationalities.

They don't. I think if challenged, you would struggle to find a value distinct and exclusive to Irish people that *all* Irish people share and *no* non-Irish person claims. Being up for the craic?

It's not some kind of mistaken defense or delaying tactic.

It is. You're talking about values and I can guarantee I don't share your values. Are you Irish? If you are, am I not Irish because I don't share your values? Or are we both Irish, regardless of values. Because being Irish is not defined by something so ephemeral as values.

It's about what's important. I've seen how women are treated in many Islamic nations. I definitely don't want to happen here. Just as I've seen the range of abuse that happens to children in parts of Africa or Asia, again, something I wouldn't want to happen here. It is our values that ensure that such behavior does not become acceptable here.

It wasn't so long ago a woman was intimidated in an Irish court by a procession of her neighbors going up in court to shake the hand of the man convicted of raping her. Her parish priest testified on behalf of the rapist. Are the people who did these things not Irish in your view because they didn't demonstrate your definition of Irish values?

Sand

Sand wrote: »

A few hundred years back, "western" cultures were burning women at the stake for being witches. Much more recently women were being denied basic equality such as being able to keep their job after becoming parents. Basing your entire defense of the west on the west's enduring defense of women's rights is a losing proposition.

haha.. I'm not basing "my entire defense" on women's rights. The example was of a Lebanese man who refused to shake hands with a woman... hence the reference to women's rights and equality. I'm kinda surprised that I need to repeat that.

As for my entire defense, you haven't really provided any kind of attack on my argument that values matter, and that there are differences between cultures with regards to both the values themselves and the importance of them. You've simply disagreed... hardly a successful attack, by any measure.

Other cultures place greater or lesser importance on certain values, which western cultures has gained through social progress. Through historical events, and social consciousness, both our own culture and that of other cultures evolve.. or regress. In the case of western culture, the sphere of influence that western politics, and imperialism, has provided a sharing of cultural values. In the same manner that Islamic nations, typically, share their own values through the belief in Islam. Those values (of Islamic cultures), can be similar (to western nations) but quite often they're polar opposites.

What even is the "west"? Is Australia part of the "west" despite being on roughly the same longitude as Japan?

Of course it does, since it falls into the western sphere of influence, and sharing of western culture through imperialism, the spread of Christianity, and social movements like feminism, anti-war movements, etc.

Different peoples have different historical experiences. If Ireland continues to bring in different peoples, then those peoples may indeed impose different values over those of the Irish.

They may seek to impose those different values on Irish people, and that will cause degrees of friction. However, even if they don't impose those values on Irish people, would you be happy with slavery or child abuse being applied to foreign groups (in Ireland) simply because they have such a culture?

Then you're only committed to losing slowly. My advice to you would be to fully commit to open borders and just endorse the consequences.

No. You introduced that perspective, and assigned it to me. Again, where have I even commented on such a thing previously? (Although I will say that I do believe the native population does have a greater claim on a country than any foreign groups, including second generations born)

As for that advice, nah.. I don't buy it. We are not obliged to open our borders and accept others without conditions being applied.

They don't. I think if challenged, you would struggle to find a value distinct and exclusive to Irish people that *all* Irish people share and *no* non-Irish person claims. Being up for the craic?

Ahh but I've repeatedly spoken about the values that are common within western culture. These are not exclusive to being Irish... (Look back.. did I even specify Irish culture at any point?) I'm getting the very strong feeling that you're not really considering what I've been writing, and are just seeking to poke holes at random.

yeah, I'm snipping the rest, since you're being circular and I keep getting the impression that you're not really arguing with me, but rather with yourself. You've assigned so many ideas and meanings to my points (that I didn't make)... what's up with that?

The only thing that matters is the rule of law.
Individual values are not important as such, what matters is the law of the land.
Want to commit child abuse? Against the law.
Want 5 wives? Against the law.
Doesn't matter what someone's own personal values are, so long as they are legal.

The_Kew_Tour

WrenBoy wrote: »

Found it
https://www.newstalk.com/listen-back
if you select Newstalk Breakfast on yesterdays date. and skip to the 1hour 50mins mark.

Cheers for that. And it’s every bit as bad as you said.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

The only thing that matters is the rule of law.
Individual values are not important as such, what matters is the law of the land.
Want to commit child abuse? Against the law.
Want 5 wives? Against the law.
Doesn't matter what someone's own personal values are, so long as they are legal.

Victims of crime always find great comfort knowing that the law was broken.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Victims of crime always find great comfort knowing that the law was broken.

What's your point?

WrenBoy

Sand wrote: »

A few hundred years back, "western" cultures were.....

Your already off to a bad start when your explaining backwards cultural practices being brought into the West by comparing them to peoples actions in the West "A few hundred years back".. why would we want to go back to that ? the good ideas and practices endured the harmful and unhelpful were abandoned.

jmreire

Sand wrote: »

A few hundred years back, "western" cultures were burning women at the stake for being witches. Much more recently women were being denied basic equality such as being able to keep their job after becoming parents. Basing your entire defense of the west on the west's enduring defense of women's rights is a losing proposition.

What even is the "west"? Is Australia part of the "west" despite being on roughly the same longitude as Japan?



Different peoples have different historical experiences. If Ireland continues to bring in different peoples, then those peoples may indeed impose different values over those of the Irish.



Then you're only committed to losing slowly. My advice to you would be to fully commit to open borders and just endorse the consequences.



They don't. They change like the wind.



They aren't.



They don't. I think if challenged, you would struggle to find a value distinct and exclusive to Irish people that *all* Irish people share and *no* non-Irish person claims. Being up for the craic?



It is. You're talking about values and I can guarantee I don't share your values. Are you Irish? If you are, am I not Irish because I don't share your values? Or are we both Irish, regardless of values. Because being Irish is not defined by something so ephemeral as values.



It wasn't so long ago a woman was intimidated in an Irish court by a procession of her neighbors going up in court to shake the hand of the man convicted of raping her. Her parish priest testified on behalf of the rapist. Are the people who did these things not Irish in your view because they didn't demonstrate your definition of Irish values?

The problems in the west re burning witches etc. were rightly known as the dark ages, but the west moved on from that, and thats where we are today. Problem with Islam is that it has not changed since the 6th century. Even Muslim immigrants to the west who adopt some western customs, drinking, women wearing whatever they like, listening to western TV and music, etc. But the minute they return to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Saudi etc. the minute they step off the plane, ship etc. they will revert straightaway to Islamic culture and values.And that goes for the grandkids of the original immigrants. And when and where in the west they are in sufficient Nrs, they will replicate the Islamic way of life.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

haha.. I'm not basing "my entire defense" on women's rights. The example was of a Lebanese man who refused to shake hands with a woman... hence the reference to women's rights and equality. I'm kinda surprised that I need to repeat that.

This Lebanese man was rejected from Irish citizenship on the basis of him not shaking a woman's hand. This links Irish citizenship and membership within the Irish nation to "values". I completely disagree with that view and I think it is setup for failure.

As for my entire defense, you haven't really provided any kind of attack on my argument that values matter, and that there are differences between cultures with regards to both the values themselves and the importance of them. You've simply disagreed... hardly a successful attack, by any measure.

I'm not referring to"winning" a debate on the internet. I'm referring to protecting the interests of Irish people from multiculturalism and mass migration. Open border advocates have a strong moral argument (one I disagree with) for their views. When being Irish is reduced to only holding values which anyone can claim and many, many Irish people do not hold, then any counter-argument is doomed to failure.

Of course it does, since it falls into the western sphere of influence, and sharing of western culture through imperialism, the spread of Christianity, and social movements like feminism, anti-war movements, etc.

What defines a country falling into the western sphere of influence? Adhering to neoliberalism? Would India be part of the west in your analysis?

They may seek to impose those different values on Irish people, and that will cause degrees of friction. However, even if they don't impose those values on Irish people, would you be happy with slavery or child abuse being applied to foreign groups (in Ireland) simply because they have such a culture?

Ideally, I wouldn't permit the level of mass migration necessary to create foreign enclaves in Ireland so that such concerns (slavery, child abuse etc) are a factor for Irish people to concern themselves with. The only reason illiberal practices in foreign cultures are at all a practical concern for Irish policymakers is because Irish policy is importing those cultures.

No. You introduced that perspective, and assigned it to me. Again, where have I even commented on such a thing previously? (Although I will say that I do believe the native population does have a greater claim on a country than any foreign groups, including second generations born)

I didn't assign any perspective to you. I outlined two options, and you've acknowledged being closer to one of those options than the other. The disagreement I have is that accepting a definition or distinction of the 'native population' (in this case the Irish) to holding loose, ill-defined values that anyone can claim. To remain consistent to your values first definition you have to exclude native people who don't hold those values. And include foreign groups who do. So you end up disowning Paddy because he holds some old school Catholic values, whereas Achmed is as Irish as the Irish themselves because he is willing to shake a woman's hand. It is a losing proposition.

As for that advice, nah.. I don't buy it. We are not obliged to open our borders and accept others without conditions being applied.

But the border's are open. And saying legal migration is okay so long as they are neoliberals and pay their taxes isnt going to stop that.

Ahh but I've repeatedly spoken about the values that are common within western culture. These are not exclusive to being Irish...

Which is my point. Values are irrelevant when it comes to defining the Irish people. The Irish people have a nation-state, Ireland. Ireland has a migration policy.

"The west" is just a very loose categorization of European countries and countries settled by Europeans. There is no policy making at the level of "the west".

It seems to be men who worry on women’s behalf what effect 3rd world or Islamic immigration will have on them. Why is that? Why are women not worried for themselves.

Sand

WrenBoy wrote: »

Your already off to a bad start when your explaining backwards cultural practices being brought into the West by comparing them to peoples actions in the West "A few hundred years back".. why would we want to go back to that ? the good ideas and practices endured the harmful and unhelpful were abandoned.

I'm not "explaining" backwards cultural practices. I'm disagreeing that Irish people, or Europeans more generally are fundamentally defined by the values they hold. Europeans were European back in the 16th century just as much as they are today. Values and ideas change, but peoples endure far more.

And as I said above - I don't care what backward views other cultures hold. I only care that mass migration is bringing those cultural practices here.

jmreire wrote: »

The problems in the west re burning witches etc. were rightly known as the dark ages, but the west moved on from that, and thats where we are today. Problem with Islam is that it has not changed since the 6th century. Even Muslim immigrants to the west who adopt some western customs, drinking, women wearing whatever they like, listening to western TV and music, etc. But the minute they return to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Saudi etc. the minute they step off the plane, ship etc. they will revert straightaway to Islamic culture and values.And that goes for the grandkids of the original immigrants. And when and where in the west they are in sufficient Nrs, they will replicate the Islamic way of life.

I don't care if other peoples have backwards cultural practices. I only care that mass migration makes those practices an issue for Irish people in the first place.

Even if all migrant groups arrived here legally, held good neoliberal values and paid their taxes mass migration would still be a negative outcome for indigenous people. In my view, the basis for rejecting mass migration has to be the interests of the indigenous people.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems to be men who worry on women’s behalf what effect 3rd world or Islamic immigration will have on them. Why is that? Why are women not worried for themselves.

Haha...what?

LostinBlanch

Sand wrote: »

This Lebanese man was rejected from Irish citizenship on the basis of him not shaking a woman's hand. This links Irish citizenship and membership within the Irish nation to "values". I completely disagree with that view and I think it is setup for failure.

That article linked referred to him being rejected for German citizenship, not Irish.

Swindled

LostinBlanch wrote: »

That article linked referred to him being rejected for German citizenship, not Irish.

Speaking to those I've worked who have been given Irish citizenship, it's the EU passport they want, so minor difference these days.
The term Irish / German is now meaningless.

clytemnestra

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems to be men who worry on women’s behalf what effect 3rd world or Islamic immigration will have on them. Why is that? Why are women not worried for themselves.

Why are you assuming everyone here is male? I'm a woman and having lived in a European city when young where I endured nonstop street harassment from second generation Muslim men, it bothers me to see the beginnings of it in Ireland.

enricoh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It seems to be men who worry on women’s behalf what effect 3rd world or Islamic immigration will have on them. Why is that? Why are women not worried for themselves.

Yeah ask the women in cologne if they worry about it at all. They even have a women only festival in Sweden nowadays, not very inclusive of them now is it?!

archfi

Swindled wrote: »

Speaking to those I've worked who have been given Irish citizenship, it's the EU passport they want, so minor difference these days.
The term Irish / German is now meaningless.

This is true.
Ireland, in fact all EU members should be rigorous in who they grant citizenship to.

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly, I don't know. We've always had a society where people were encouraged to conform to "acceptable" behavior, and while that has declined within the last few decades, there is still the expectation of people to behave in certain ways. We do have formal laws, to reinforce that expectation, but there are also a range of cultural expectations, which while less enforced, do have a basis for pushing conformity.



Individual liberty is a foreign idea, and in reality, it rarely exists. We've always been forced to live within certain constraints, either by law, or by society/culture. And in spite of the growing belief in personal freedoms, our society has implemented all manner of restrictions on people to control. Whether that's regulations regarding the requirements on having degrees/certifications for employment, to the requirement on people being qualified to do work... when in the past there wasn't such a need.

The funny thing is that living in China taught me just how much European countries, including Ireland, are regulated, and the levels of conditioning present in our society. China has a huge range of laws concerning behavior, but most of them are rarely enforced. As long as people avoid official notice, they're pretty much free to do as they wish. The opposite is true in Europe, because the reinforcement of certain values, like anti-corruption, or the desire for safety, ensure that people's actions are monitored far more. There are so many layers of rules, and laws in the West to control behavior... all for good reasons, but they exist there nonetheless.

The point being that we already have the framework for assimilation, although, I'm sure more would be needed to make it more obvious and efficient. When we give minorities rights to behave independently of the social norms, we are opposing the desire for assimilation. When Muslims can have multiple wives in the West, as per their own religious/cultural beliefs, that opposes assimilation, since the common norm is that marriage is between two people. A boundary on behavior that most Europeans have to live by.



Not being smart, but you've provided a framework for assimilation there. I do agree with you but it does lay down grounds from the expectation that migrants conform to the systems within our own society... ie. the move towards secularism.



Ahh well, I'm of the opinion that certain cultures are simply opposites. While populations are low, it's easy to isolate these cultures and prevent any clashing from happening, but as numbers increase, there are greater demands to adapt the local area to reflect that of the foreign culture. That's been the case in France, where Islam used to be isolated, without any strong foundation to enforce their own values on others. However in recent years, numbers of people have increased to the point, where those foreign values can be enforced on others... and the demands for protecting personal freedoms, paralyses western societies from combating such a movement.

We should be encouraging the immigration of peoples with similar cultural backgrounds, because those similarities will minimize the chances of clashing relating to values. So, Ireland encouraging Europeans to come here, or other westerners, because we already share values on things such as women's rights, equality, violence towards children, etc. We already share social and legal changes, which are embedded in the conditioning we all experience. As such integration, and assimilation are far more likely to occur, and even without that happening, there aren't any common behaviors which are offensive to our own cultural/social norms. I'd extend the same for Asians, because in most cases, their values match ours, and even if they don't, they have no desire to transplant their cultures into western countries.

The issue arises when certain cultures want to be recognised as different, but also be protected. And that's an obstacle, because those who set themselves apart (expecting preferential treatment), will become a focus for distrust and contempt. Therefore increasing the chance of clashing happening, which will expand their own dissatisfaction, and their own desires for their own culture to become dominant in their own areas.



The problem is that it hasn't been fought against. For the last two-three decades, multiculturalism has received widespread support, and anyone who objected, faced condemnation. If it had been examined, and researched properly before being implemented, then we'd likely to have avoided most of the problems that are arising. Less virtue signalling, and more practical consideration about how society would change, and the place at which these migrants would end up.

I said this before, but the truth is that we used to have a focus/assumption that assimilation would occur naturally, as those who arrived would recognise the superiority of our culture, or simply accept it because it made living there easier. Those who didn't conform, were such a small number as to be easily ignored.. and there was no expectation by migrants for any special privileges to be extended. They knew that dressing/behaving different would attract negative attention, and so, they kept it out of sight. Now, things have changed, and that assumption can no longer be made... even though what's replaced it is generating far more problems than what we had previously.

Well, I think that’s a fairly literalist interpretation of what individual liberty is. Personally I don’t think that the imposition of law is invariably a restriction of liberty — in fact I would argue that in many cases it is the opposite, especially in cases where (a) it provides a mechanism by which citizens have a process of recourse against other citizens and the State where they have been wronged and (b) it helps to level the playing field, even if not completely of course, between those who have a weak position in society and those who have a strong one (particularly the State , but also the wealthy). A world without law would give people true individual liberty in a literalist sense, but in an effective sense it would merely lead to a situation governed by might is right. Those who are in a weaker position for whatever reason would simply be at the unchecked mercy of the strong, and so their liberty is unstable. So Europeans living under more thorough legal or regulatory regimes does not invariably violate the ideal of individual liberty.

The Chinese interpretation of law appears to be one where the primary function is to avoid chaos and disorder — and this avoidance of chaos is used as a justification for the one party system and the nature of the State’s strength. The European legal culture, as it has developed, has become one of both control yes but also the upholding of individual rights against persecution by other citizens and the State — with a far greater focus on individual liberty than China. So individualism is very much tied into modern Western European culture, and this is reflected in its laws. Moving towards the Chinese model for migrant assimilation therefore seems to involve an undermining of this, or at least an indication that it would be hard to implement.

And yes, I agree that co-education is a model for assimilation. But that’s the point — it is often made out in these debates (and I’m not referring to you) that those who are “pro-multiculturalism” are all woke happy-clappy types who think that immigration and intermingling of cultures are just invariably fantastic and this can never be questioned, challenged, or subject to any change of policy that would suggest its anything other than wonderful. This just isn’t true, at least not in the real world beyond the Twittersphere and there are middle grounds on these matters. I for example think that different cultures can be present in one society, but I do believe that it poses problems and (as I’ve mentioned) I think that measures such as total secularism in education and co-education of all children is one way of helping to achieve a sense of unity and mutual understanding. So yes, I believe in assimilation as you do, but the difference in our views is one of degrees — mine is simply lighter touch, and in my own personal opinion is one which is more sustainable and more in line with individual liberty. But I don’t think there isn’t room for compromise between what you and I believe.

Swindled

clytemnestra wrote: »

Why are you assuming everyone here is male? I'm a woman and having lived in a European city when young where I endured nonstop street harassment from second generation Muslim men, it bothers me to see the beginnings of it in Ireland.

You are obviously bigoted, prejudiced, racist, xenophobic, anti-multiculturist, far right, Nazi, and Neo Nazi. I can't think of any further derogatory names to call you for stating the truth and to try and silence you, but I'm sure there's a few.

clytemnestra

clytemnestra wrote: »

Why are you assuming everyone here is male? I'm a woman and having lived in a European city when young where I endured nonstop street harassment from second generation Muslim men, it bothers me to see the beginnings of it in Ireland.

I'm female and I lived in a Muslim city where I never received any harassment at all.
So, different experiences for everyone I guess

clytemnestra

Swindled wrote: »

You are obviously bigoted, prejudiced, racist, xenophobic, anti-multiculturist, far right, Nazi, and Neo Nazi. I can't think of any further derogatory names to call you for stating the truth and to try and silence you, but I'm sure there's a few.

Indeed. Don't forget basement dwelling incel and conservative Catholic Opus Dei Youth Defence member who also supported Trump and Brexit.

I get tired from the contortions. I try to explain that *because* I'm an old lefty I oppose the ingress of cheap imported labour. That *because* I'm a feminist I am not keen on backward misogynistic cultures being imported. That *because* I'm a liberal and value free speech I'm horrified by cancel culture and purity spirals. Feels exhausting though.

clytemnestra

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm female and I lived in a Muslim city where I never received any harassment at all.
So, different experiences for everyone I guess

I found less hassle and disrespect in Muslim countries than I did in European countries with sizeable populations of Muslims who were 2nd and 3rd generation. In other words, multicultural societies and the tension and discord caused by completely different cultures trying and failing to co-exist.

Swindled

clytemnestra wrote: »

Indeed. Don't forget basement dwelling incel and conservative Catholic Opus Dei Youth Defence member who also supported Trump and Brexit.

I get tired from the contortions. I try to explain that *because* I'm an old lefty I oppose the ingress of cheap imported labour. That *because* I'm a feminist I am not keen on backward misogynistic cultures being imported. That *because* I'm a liberal and value free speech I'm horrified by cancel culture and purity spirals. Feels exhausting though.

I'll make a note of those other names for the spam detector. It's a sure sign when they resort to the name calling and attempts to silence, that they know they have no decent arguments.

Yep, what were once left wing liberal feminists views, would now be considered far right. We live in a post-truth society as they now like to say. History moves to the left, and as a civilisation continues to fall, any and all law or order is then objected to and fought.

clytemnestra

clytemnestra wrote: »

I found less hassle and disrespect in Muslim countries than I did in European countries with sizeable populations of Muslims who were 2nd and 3rd generation. In other words, multicultural societies and the tension and discord caused by completely different cultures trying and failing to co-exist.

Well the Muslim country I lived in wasnt a strict Muslim country, they were quite Western, and it was full of internationals.
Sure, I guess it's like everyone is different and we can't assume all people of the same faith or ethnicity are the same.

ThunbergsAreGo

bubblypop wrote: »

Well the Muslim country I lived in wasnt a strict Muslim country, they were quite Western, and it was full of internationals.
Sure, I guess it's like everyone is different and we can't assume all people of the same faith or ethnicity are the same.

Where was it out of interest?

jmreire

bubblypop wrote: »

Well the Muslim country I lived in wasnt a strict Muslim country, they were quite Western, and it was full of internationals.
Sure, I guess it's like everyone is different and we can't assume all people of the same faith or ethnicity are the same.

bubblypop, try some of the "Stans" sometime, or Libya, Sudan, Chechnya. etc. big difference from where you were. Incomparable, in fact. Ask me how I know.......

jmreire

jmreire wrote: »

bubblypop, try some of the "Stans" sometime, or Libya, Sudan, Chechnya. etc. big difference from where you were. Incomparable, in fact. Ask me how I know.......

I know how you know. We had this conversation before.
And we all know people are different. And countries are different.
And we cannot tar everyone of the same nationality, faith or background with the same brush.