Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP
Options
Comments
-
I think it's too late,we're just another country butchered by multiculturalism0
-
Freight bandit wrote: »I think it's too late,we're just another country butchered by multiculturalism
Butchered by “the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society”?
Jaysis…
To be fair it does look like there are different definitions of multiculturalism floating around. I’m not in favour of “separate” cultures within a society as that is just going to create division.
But the answer is not to stifle immigration, as that will make us isolationist and fall behind in every aspect, whether economically or technologically.
The answer has to be to create an inclusive society where immigrants feel like they belong here, and by shared experiences and shared education over time, cultures lose their distinctions.
This takes time though, and relies on a common education/common prospects.0 -
So RobbieTheRobber
looking at this logically from your deductions and statements you are saying that ALL muslims have some or all of the following traits or behaviours:- treat women like dirt
- wish gay people be stoned to death
- think nothing of marrying 12 year olds
- would pimp out their daughter in arranged marriages
- think blowing up people is ok because of some invisible man in the sky
You must be saying that because Justin Credible Darts never even mentioned muslims, never mind ALL muslims.
A lot of us have been saying for years that SOME muslims except the above traits, but people like you have always denied it.
Yet now it seems you are going off and saying it is ALL muslims that have those traits and behaviours.
Remind us again who is supposedly bigoted and narrow minded?
That would not be looking at it logically that would be jumping to conclusions based on no evidence at all. Or it would be just trying to lie about me.
But there is nothing logical at all about your post.0 -
Justin Credible Darts wrote: »anyone that thinks some immigrant with a history of wife beating, or pro jihadist tendencies, or is a blatant homophobe, or a combination of 2 or all 3 is suddenly going to "change" overnight cos he will get a council house in tallaght is seriously deluded.Justin Credible Darts wrote: »I know the vetting process is not working if jihadi terrorists can come here. Yes, jihadi terrorists in Ireland., people who want to kill those who dont believe in their made up invisible man in the sky.
Carry on making excuses and deflectingJustin Credible Darts wrote: »Ireland obviously....are you incapable of reading ?
oh wait are you trying to say they are not muslims ? originally from another country and these jihadi's are catholic irish people who do this as a hobby ? part timers eh ?
Here is a fact, they are here now, and pro immigration people like you are the reason they are here, sure why not,
Picture it now...They are saying lets go to Ireland, piece of piss, heck, the irish government will even house us ahead of their own people. We can pretend we are refugees.
If anyone says anything bandy the race card around, they will be plenty of gullible white people, especially white women quick to defend us, so what if we slap women around, hate gays, and treat them like dirt. Just pretend we are the victims, must dash, some terrorist attack to plan.
What a splendid future in store for Ireland.Justin Credible Darts wrote: »Here is a scenario...
Jihadi hates capitalists, and all they stand for, despise gays too. Wants them stoned to death., cos his invisible man seemingly said so in some book.
His wife, who was forced in to marrying him by her father who is nothing more than a pimp, has little or no rights, and she gets slapped around by the jihadi., sod her rights eh ?
They come to Ireland, and get a council house, and SUDDENLY we are expected to believe this man is no longer a homophobe, no longer a wife beater, no longer a terrorist, no longer a scumbag who treats people like dirt....why ? We already had one person in this thread say they "can change"....as if that could happen.
People seriously need to open their eyes. Also women defending these bigots and scumbags remind me of those battered wives you see on tv making excuses for these people.Justin Credible Darts wrote: »because he was trying to imply I was a racist.
I despise people who treat women like dirt
I despise people who wish gay people be stoned to death
I despise people who think nothing of marrying 12 year olds
I despise people who would pimp out their daughter in arranged marriages
I despise people who think blowing up people is ok because of some invisible man in the sky
I do not want those backward, vile people in my country.
Trying to imply i must therefore be a racist is the only comeback they have, and says more about them.Justin Credible Darts wrote: »is arranged marriages an exaggeration ?
how about jihadis in Ireland ? was that report a lie ?
Did I make it up about certain muslim countries treating women and the gay community like dirt ?
are ISIS and terrorist orgs a figment of my imagination ?
No, these people exist, and are coming here.
Any person who cares about gay rights, womens rights etc does not want those type of people here.
As i said earlier, we had one poster who thinks these cavemen type people "can change" when they get here.Justin Credible Darts wrote: »good for you,
But I dont like homophobes, or women haters, or terrorists, I dont like people who think marrying 12 years old are ok etc etc I don believe in arranged marriages, where a girl could be forced to marry a man, what if she were lesbian for arguments sake, where is her right, her choice ? when forced to marry some man her pimp father picked out for her, unable to come out as gay for fear of some reprisal of disgracing the family.
I don't want that here, and you can huff and puff all you want, but that is what makes this country better than those places because I have the right to say these things here in this country.Justin Credible Darts wrote: »how is it racist, when i am defending women who are the same race and religion
how is it racist when i am defending gay people of the same religion and race ?
I was clearly referring to the actions of certain people and their own personal behavior.
Typical you, throwing accusations around.Justin Credible Darts wrote: »Are the gay people who are treated like dirt not also muslim ? I am defending them
The wives of those people are also muslim, and I was defending them too, but you have chosen to ignore this to throw around accusations
show me where I said ALL muslims were vile
Oh wait, you cant because i never said it, but it dont matter to you in your quest to throw accusations aroundPeople who do the things he stated ARE “backward, vile people” though. He didn’t say all Muslims do them. He never even mentioned the word Muslim. A lot of twisting of words by you, yet your the first crying if someone misinterprets your words.
Sorry Fandymo are you trying to suggest that JCD is not speaking about Muslims in the unedited quoted posts above?
Is that really your take, that these messages are not about Muslims and that he never typed the word Muslim once?
Go on explain them to me so.0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »Sorry Fandymo are you trying to suggest that JCD is not speaking about Muslims in the unedited quoted posts above?
Is that really your take, that these messages are not about Muslims and that he never typed the word Muslim once?
Go on explain them to me so.
Not all muslims are jihadists/ pro jihadi and salafis Rob, it appears thats a leap you made in assigning what JCD was describing to ALL muslims. From my reading of the quotes you selected anyway.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not all muslims are jihadists/ pro jihadi and salafis Rob, it appears thats a leap you made in assigning what JCD was describing to ALL muslims. From my reading of the quotes you selected anyway.
JCD is anti immigrant right to an eu level. Has stated it recently on a post here.
It is my contention that JCD is using jihadist to refer to all Muslims.
My reason for this is that Not all of the specific negative things JCD accused them of doing would make them individually a jihadist.
Therefore it would be reasonable to assume he is using jihadist to describe all Muslim persons he does not like.
For example one of the traits he mentioned was arranged marriages. Now being a part of an arranged marriage is surely not what makes a person a jihadist right?
It is my contention that JCD is using jihadist to negatively refer to all Muslims.0 -
-
Butchered by “the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society”?
Jaysis…
To be fair it does look like there are different definitions of multiculturalism floating around. I’m not in favour of “separate” cultures within a society as that is just going to create division.
But the answer is not to stifle immigration, as that will make us isolationist and fall behind in every aspect, whether economically or technologically.
The answer has to be to create an inclusive society where immigrants feel like they belong here, and by shared experiences and shared education over time, cultures lose their distinctions.
This takes time though, and relies on a common education/common prospects.
We'll end up with anomic societies with little social cohesion...it won't be an improvement on the society we had0 -
“You see, I find this part quite interesting because I've traveled extensively in non-western nations. China is incredibly nationalistic. As are most Asian countries. Russia, definitely ”
It does sound to me there that you made the point that most Asian countries are incredibly nationalistic.
Yes, I did. Now, look back at the statement you made. Notice any differences between that statement and the one above? Your wording is different.. ie, the claim that I keep making such statements, when I haven't.Well, the point you were making was that everywhere else is nationalistic, so we should be too. Your exact words were:
“ Why is it that only western nations must be so welcoming to everyone, when non-western nations aren't themselves? In fact, if you want to look at nationalism worldwide, the biggest examples of nationalistic nations would be found outside of Western nations.. and yet”.
You really don't need to reinterpret or translate my words into your words. People can see what I've written.It’s called summarising. You should try it sometime ��
I prefer accuracy. Perhaps that's something you should consider?Interestingly I have never heard any historical article or book explain that Genghis Khan happened because mongols were just an ethnic group devoted to raiding. Shows how little you know of what happened there, and yet you’re the one accusing me of dumbing it down.
You did dumb it down. Simplify it beyond relevance to what happened. Just as I did. Oh, I could write a detailed account of what happened with the Mongols, but there's little point in doing so, and it has no relevance to this thread. You made the claim that his rise to power was due to Chinese nationalism, which it wasn't.You have the same resources as Stephen Hawking had. Why didn’t you find Hawking radiation?
That's an utterly retarded comparison.Failed to address? Actually it’s a case of not having the time or inclination to address. There are too many points I disagreed with you on, so I chose to address the few I could within a reasonable time period.
Except you didn't, and still haven't.
You do like to shift goalposts a lot in your posts. Drifting away with each new post.0 -
Butchered by “the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society”?
Jaysis…
To be fair it does look like there are different definitions of multiculturalism floating around. I’m not in favour of “separate” cultures within a society as that is just going to create division.
But the answer is not to stifle immigration, as that will make us isolationist and fall behind in every aspect, whether economically or technologically.
The answer has to be to create an inclusive society where immigrants feel like they belong here, and by shared experiences and shared education over time, cultures lose their distinctions.
This takes time though, and relies on a common education/common prospects.
This does not seem to fair well in neighboring countries .0 -
Advertisement
-
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »Sorry Fandymo are you trying to suggest that JCD is not speaking about Muslims in the unedited quoted posts above?
Is that really your take, that these messages are not about Muslims and that he never typed the word Muslim once?
Go on explain them to me so.
Would you describe people who treat women like dirt as progressive? Or backwards?
Would you describe people who wish gay people be stoned to death as progressive? Or backward?
Would you describe people who think nothing of marrying 12 year olds as progressive? Or backwards?
Would you describe people who would pimp out their daughter in arranged marriages as progressive? Or backwards?
Each question has 2 options, would you describe the above traits as progressive or backwards. Whether the person was religious or not.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Yes, I did. Now, look back at the statement you made. Notice any differences between that statement and the one above? Your wording is different.. ie, the claim that I keep making such statements, when I haven't.
So your main point is that you only made this statement once, rather than repeated it more than once?
Thank you for making my point for me - my point was that you made the statement and you are not backing down from it.
No, because I want you to make clear what you’re saying in words that are unambiguous. To do this, I must translate your words and ask you to clarify if I am correct, because otherwise you will no doubt claim “that’s not what I said” disingenuously as you did (in my opinion) in my above point.You really don't need to reinterpret or translate my words into your words. People can see what I've written.
Just because something is long winded has no bearing on it’s accuracy, in fact it’s quite often the opposite.I prefer accuracy. Perhaps that's something you should consider?
once again, I summarised. We have to summarise to communicate. “Dumbing it down” suggests I was inaccurate. You are conflating conciseness with inaccuracy, which is a logical error on your part.You did dumb it down.
Seriously? I just made the point that if Chinese society had not been so exclusionist on the basis of ethnic origin at the time towards mongols, Genghis Khan could not have united the clans and raided them - his support base would most likely have ended up joining them looking for jobs in their cities. Yes, they did have advanced cities with jobs at the time.Simplify it beyond relevance to what happened.
please dont, as you already showed how little you understand anything about ANY group of people with your statement that “the mongols were a ethnic group devoted to raiding, steppe wandering”, and I’ve had enough of a laugh for one day reading that.Oh, I could write a detailed account of what happened with the Mongols
you say it wasn’t, and yet any sane person who reads about it can see that it was. It’s not labelled “nationalism” in the history books, that is maybe why it escapes your blinkered method of argument, where something is true only if you say it is.You made the claim that his rise to power was due to Chinese nationalism, which it wasn't.
I probably don’t have time to respond to a lot of your arguments after this post, but I’ll try to lay out my logic for some of my points, hopefully instead of trying to argue pedantically against it, you’ll try and think more deeply about it if there’s no compulsion to actually respond to it.That's an utterly retarded comparison.
Except you didn't, and still haven't.
You do like to shift goalposts a lot in your posts. Drifting away with each new post.
And yet you haven’t pointed out a single country that doesn’t have any agreements or fights with its neighbours.
You’ll find that this is the original reason for forming both the United Nations, and the original concepts for the European Union, because people realised after big wars exactly the things I’m saying here, ie. you can’t have 2 independent countries without conflict or union (which means they’re not really independent countries anymore).0 -
So your main point is that you only made this statement once, rather than repeated it more than once?
Thank you for making my point for me - my point was that you made the statement and you are not backing down from it.
Why would I back down from it? You haven't countered what I said. Perhaps you should go back and refresh your memory?No, because I want you to make clear what you’re saying in words that are unambiguous. To do this, I must translate your words and ask you to clarify if I am correct, because otherwise you will no doubt claim “that’s not what I said” disingenuously as you did (in my opinion) in my above point.
You've been changing the meaning though. That's what happens when you reinterpret my writing. Quote me, and respond directly to what I wrote. Don't tell me what I seem to mean. Stick to what I wrote.Just because something is long winded has no bearing on it’s accuracy, in fact it’s quite often the opposite.
Whatever. I really don't need your approval over how I write.Seriously? I just made the point that if Chinese society had not been so exclusionist on the basis of ethnic origin at the time towards mongols, Genghis Khan could not have united the clans and raided them - his support base would most likely have ended up joining them looking for jobs in their cities. Yes, they did have advanced cities with jobs at the time.
Well, that's a new point.. which you didn't make before. All cultures behaved under an US vs Them mentality throughout history, and you're expecting a change of behavior that doesn't bear out anywhere.please dont, as you already showed how little you understand anything about ANY group of people with your statement that “the mongols were a ethnic group devoted to raiding, steppe wandering”, and I’ve had enough of a laugh for one day reading that.
And... we're back to your sense of superiority over others. Based on... nothing. What I wrote was accurate. You disagree, fine. I honestly don't care.you say it wasn’t, and yet any sane person who reads about it can see that it was. It’s not labelled “nationalism” in the history books, that is maybe why it escapes your blinkered method of argument, where something is true only if you say it is.
Chinese Imperialism... not nationalism. Nationalism wasn't something that Chinese people encountered well into the 19th century. There is a difference.And yet you haven’t pointed out a single country that doesn’t have any agreements or fights with its neighbours.
Why would I need to? You seem awfully confused. Perhaps if you stuck to what I'd written, you'd remember the points that were made, as opposed to whatever argument that is going on in your head.You’ll find that this is the original reason for forming both the United Nations, and the original concepts for the European Union, because people realised after big wars exactly the things I’m saying here, ie. you can’t have 2 independent countries without conflict or union (which means they’re not really independent countries anymore).
haha.. more irrelevant examples, that have no bearing on the discussion, but also examples for... points that weren't made or referred to. As I said, shifting goalposts all the time.0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »That would not be looking at it logically that would be jumping to conclusions based on no evidence at all. Or it would be just trying to lie about me.
But there is nothing logical at all about your post.
I bow to your superior expertise in jumping to conclusions.
And accusing others of lying shrieks of pot and kettle. :rolleyes:I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Wow.
Imagine thinking people who treat women like dirt, or who wish gay people be stoned to death or who think nothing of marrying 12 year olds aren't vile
We've really come a long way.0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Wow.
Imagine thinking people who treat women like dirt, or who wish gay people be stoned to death or who think nothing of marrying 12 year olds aren't vile
We've really come a long way.
What percentage of Muslims do you think hold all those views?0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »What percentage of Muslims do you think hold all those views?
Which ones?0 -
-
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Wow.
Imagine thinking people who treat women like dirt, or who wish gay people be stoned to death or who think nothing of marrying 12 year olds aren't vile
We've really come a long way.
What percentage of Muslims do you think
Treat women like dirt.
Wish gay people to be stoned to death
Or
Think nothing of marrying 12 year olds?0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »What percentage of Muslims do you think hold all those views?
According to the Quran:-
Women are less than equal to the man.
Gay people should be killed by being thrown from a great height.
Adulterers should be stoned to death.
Thieves should have a hand or foot amputated.
Marriage from 6 years on is permitted.
Marriages have to be arranged by the Father.
So as to your question of what percentage of Muslims hold these views? Might as well ask how many Muslims follow the Quran? because by definition, every Muslim must hold to what is taught in the Quran. But as to how many Muslims actually carry out stoning, amputating of limbs, and killing of Gay's? Certainly its being done, isis / taliban / Iran / Saudi Arabia etc. being noted for it, even in 2021. In the west at any rate, we do not get much of this extreme version of Islam , the stoning amputations etc. ( suicide bombings, beheadings excepted ) But I'm pretty sure that Muslim families' adhere pretty much to everything as laid out in the Quran when it comes to their families and everyday behaviour.0 -
Advertisement
-
According to the Quran:-
Women are less than equal to the man.
Gay people should be killed by being thrown from a great height.
Adulterers should be stoned to death.
Thieves should have a hand or foot amputated.
Marriage from 6 years on is permitted.
Marriages have to be arranged by the Father.
So as to your question of what percentage of Muslims hold these views? Might as well ask how many Muslims follow the Quran? because by definition, every Muslim must hold to what is taught in the Quran. But as to how many Muslims actually carry out stoning, amputating of limbs, and killing of Gay's? Certainly its being done, isis / taliban / Iran / Saudi Arabia etc. being noted for it, even in 2021. In the west at any rate, we do not get much of this extreme version of Islam , the stoning amputations etc. ( suicide bombings, beheadings excepted ) But I'm pretty sure that Muslim families' adhere pretty much to everything as laid out in the Quran when it comes to their families and everyday behaviour.
So you are saying All Muslims would believe those things and support them?0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »So you are saying All Muslims would believe those things and support them?
I'm not saying anything of the sort. Its the Quran saying it. The fact that any % Muslims would support these obscene practices is too much, and they are supported. If the Quran states something, Muslims are bound to believe in it, no matter what, or do you dispute that? And they do believe in the Quran, its central to and the core of their beliefs. So therefore it does happen, and anywhere in the world it happens is abhorrent. As to the actual Nrs of Muslims who would or would not take part in these activities, that's a bit of a trick question..maybe you can supply the answers yourself ?0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »What percentage of Muslims do you think
Treat women like dirt.
Wish gay people to be stoned to death
Or
Think nothing of marrying 12 year olds?
I'm opining those who'd do such vile things are, well vile.
You seem to disagree.
Peak boards - a poster arguing stoning people isn't barbaric or those who'd do it aren't vile.
I've heard it all.
(That its fellow Muslims in the main they're doing it to appears utterly lost on you.
Carry on though, I'm sure you mean well).0 -
I'm not saying anything of the sort. Its the Quran saying it. The fact that any % Muslims would support these obscene practices is too much, and they are supported. If the Quran states something, Muslims are bound to believe in it, no matter what, or do you dispute that? And they do believe in the Quran, its central to and the core of their beliefs. So therefore it does happen, and anywhere in the world it happens is abhorrent. As to the actual Nrs of Muslims who would or would not take part in these activities, that's a bit of a trick question..maybe you can supply the answers yourself ?
Sorry I'm confused now.
When you say it's the quran saying it, what are you referring to?0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »I'm opining those who'd do such vile things are, well vile.
You seem to disagree.
Peak boards - a poster arguing stoning people isn't barbaric or those who'd do it aren't vile.
I've heard it all.
(That its fellow Muslims in the main they're doing it to appears utterly lost on you.
Carry on though, I'm sure you mean well).
I haven't argued any such thing.
What a ridiculous post.
Go and quote a single post of mine saying any of those things.
Such nonsense.0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »I haven't argued any such thing.
What a ridiculous post.
Go and quote a single post of mine saying any of those things.
Such nonsense.
And so the dance begins all over again.......... you never answered any of the questions I asked you. Hardly other people’s fault for thinking you support it when you’ve refused to state that it’s vile and backward behaviour.0 -
And so the dance begins all over again.......... you never answered any of the questions I asked you. Hardly other people’s fault for thinking you support it when you’ve refused to state that it’s vile and backward behaviour.
Which is exactly the problem I have with anyone trying to suggest it is all Muslims.
The actual post has been carded but your still here argiung some other posters intent when they posted those things for the very purpose of insinuating this was all Muslims.0 -
RobbieTheRobber wrote: »Which is exactly the problem I have with anyone trying to suggest it is all Muslims.
I. Never. Mentioned. Muslims. In. My. Questions.
If fact I went as far as to say, whether they were of any religion or none.
You still refused to answer whether you thought killing gays, marrying children, abusing women was backwards. Your agenda is crystal clear.0 -
I. Never. Mentioned. Muslims. In. My. Questions.
If fact I went as far as to say, whether they were of any religion or none.
You still refused to answer whether you thought killing gays, marrying children, abusing women was backwards. Your agenda is crystal clear.
What is my agenda. Am I a secret gay killing, child marrying, woman abuser?
You should also note that I have never directly condemned the use of nuclear weapons in this thread.
What utter nonsense your posting. Secret agenda indeed.
Write up your list of crimes you wish me to condem and condem them all to secular hell I will just for you pal. Xoxo0 -
Advertisement
-
Would you describe people who treat women like dirt as progressive? Or backwards?
Would you describe people who wish gay people be stoned to death as progressive? Or backward?
Would you describe people who think nothing of marrying 12 year olds as progressive? Or backwards?
Would you describe people who would pimp out their daughter in arranged marriages as progressive? Or backwards?
Each question has 2 options, would you describe the above traits as progressive or backwards. Whether the person was religious or not.
Last sentence Robbie. And yet you STILL haven’t given an answer to any of the questions. Which would lead any normal person to come to the conclusion that you aren’t totally against any of the above.
Edit: we aren’t taking about nukes though, are we Robbie. Your deflector shields are at minimal power if that’s the best you can come up with.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement