Once again, fear mongering focuses on Muslims in America,

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Once again, fear mongering focuses on Muslims in America,

Muslim Americans are simply the new "niggers" in our society. If one were to study the history of bigotry in America "Hell's Kitchen" IN NYC was dominated by the Irish who were considered lower than dirt.

Am I defending Islam? By no means. I still think that too much of it, at least in the east is still stuck in a tribal past and needs it's own Age of Reason, to get with the times.

However, when you think about all the non-Muslim hate groups in America like White Supremacy groups, neo-Nazis and Militia groups, which are an equal threat long term, I find it absurd to only focus on Muslims.

AND we have much more of a problem with domestic street gangs who murder far more people each year than 9/11.

This is why morality cannot be label based. It sets up an "out group" vs "in group".

Yet still today the right wing wants desperately to incorporate biblical morality into politics and wonder why others fear them.

Instead of calling it "terrorsim" because Christian Timothy McVeigh and Christian Scott Roeder murdered for their god as well, what we should do is skip the labels and focus on ANYONE who violates the law and advocates violence as a political solution.

I find it sick that these people who would advocate McCarthy tactics can face elected Senator and Muslim Keith Elleson and try to sell him the idea that Muslims have rights, but only if we can snoop on them ignoring all the other bigger problems we have.

Christians in America need to stop bitching about others existing and stop insisting that pulpit politics are the way to solve problems.

The real issue globally is that there are people, who if left unchecked, will do desperate things because they fell left out or cornered.

I have more of a chance being robbed by a drug attic than I do being blown up. The focus should be on people who display desperate behavior, not their label.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
In Holland there are

In Holland there are starting to get quite a number of muslims. About half the people that are born nowadays are of muslim parents. That's quite a lot. These people come from a place where reproducing a lot is still normal, while we, in the rich west, only have one to three children in a family, because we don't NEED to reproduce extremely quickly, and rather focus on education and etc.

Anyway, what I think is important is that these people mustn't feel like they're foreigners. They should adapt to our society, in stead of trying to take it over. I work at the MacDonalds, and most alien adolescents that work here don't really believe very strongly and everything. If we have a little bit of immigration people can adapt. But if we open the flood gates and let them all in at once, we will be overrun...


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:In Holland

Thunderios wrote:

In Holland there are starting to get quite a number of muslims. About half the people that are born nowadays are of muslim parents. That's quite a lot. These people come from a place where reproducing a lot is still normal, while we, in the rich west, only have one to three children in a family, because we don't NEED to reproduce extremely quickly, and rather focus on education and etc.

Anyway, what I think is important is that these people mustn't feel like they're foreigners. They should adapt to our society, in stead of trying to take it over. I work at the MacDonalds, and most alien adolescents that work here don't really believe very strongly and everything. If we have a little bit of immigration people can adapt. But if we open the flood gates and let them all in at once, we will be overrun...

"They should adapt", to what degree? You are proving my point that humans are humans no matter where they live.

We get the same complaints about Mexicans here.

I don't care about anyone keeping their culture when they come here. I think they should do it legally, and obey our laws. Other than that, what they do on their own time is up to them. I hold no rights over my fellow human other than the common law we agree to under the advise and consent of the governed.

They don't have the right to institutionalize their religion on you, but just because they are a different religion by itself should not bother you.

Majorities in a changing society often have a needless phobia of minorities. In America at least, time after time the majority looked down on the minority as an intrusion and threat, only later for that minority to become part of accepted society.

I wouldn't buy into fear mongering. I would instead simply protect universal concepts of law such as freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and anti-trust laws that protect both the majority and minority and prevent any form of monopoly of power.

I can personally say that my neighbors whom are both Mexican and one of my co-workers who is, are decent and honest non-violent people. I see more problems with whites and blacks born here than I have with "outsiders".

I don't think you should look at the nutcase Muslims moving in, and I am sure there are, as being the majority of Muslims moving in who merely are tired of the theocracy they came from.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3562
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:   I can

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

 

 

I can personally say that my neighbors whom are both Mexican and one of my co-workers who is, are decent and honest non-violent people.

 

 

 

 

 And  I can truthfully say that Oscar Schindler was a Nazi who paradoxically favored the Jews.    So what ?   Did his behavior represent the vast majority of  his fellow facists ?   No.  

    

 

  I can personally attest to knowing a family of Mexican immigrants whom I would have no problem leaving my wallet with.   They are kind-hearted to a fault.  Again, so what ?     What is most important is that a great preponderance of the hispanic population in my area ( Texas )  have come to represent the lowest common denominator in term of their moral turpitude.   Statistically speaking the group as a whole is cornering the market on such things as gang activity, highest drop out rate of any ethnic group in the US, domestic violence rates, driving under the influence ( a rash of Hispanic drivers driving against the flow of traffic on an interstate highway ) ,  frequent charges of animal cruelty ( cock fighting and even worse ), etc.  

  

    Individual examples of admirable behavior mean nothing if they only represent the exception to an overall pattern.  

 

  I have no problem with maintaining  an attitude of  threat assessment no matter the group under scrutiny.   My evaluation is based upon their actions alone.   

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

 

 

I can personally say that my neighbors whom are both Mexican and one of my co-workers who is, are decent and honest non-violent people.

 

 

 

 

 And  I can truthfully say that Oscar Schindler was a Nazi who paradoxically favored the Jews.    So what ?   Did his behavior represent the vast majority of  his fellow facists ?   No.  

    

 

  I can personally attest to knowing a family of Mexican immigrants whom I would have no problem leaving my wallet with.   They are kind-hearted to a fault.  Again, so what ?     What is most important is that a great preponderance of the hispanic population in my area ( Texas )  have come to represent the lowest common denominator in term of their moral turpitude.   Statistically speaking the group as a whole is cornering the market on such things as gang activity, highest drop out rate of any ethnic group in the US, domestic violence rates, driving under the influence ( a rash of Hispanic drivers driving against the flow of traffic on an interstate highway ) ,  frequent charges of animal cruelty ( cock fighting and even worse ), etc.  

  

    Individual examples of admirable behavior mean nothing if they only represent the exception to an overall pattern.  

 

  I have no problem with maintaining  an attitude of  threat assessment no matter the group under scrutiny.   My evaluation is based upon their actions alone.   

 

And because IN your local, because Mexicans represent a majority of crime that means all Mexicans in your area and in America for that matter should be lumped together? By that standard we should lump all urban blacks together because they constitute most of the crime because they have a higher population in urban settings.

You don't get it. If you have a majority population ANYWHERE, then that majority will have a minority of bad apples in that group that represents the ratio of the majority.

In France the majority of prisoners ARE FRENCH because the majority of people in that country are French.

You live in a high population of Hispanics so the minority of Hispanic will represent the ratio of that population of crime.

DONT make race the fucking issue.

There are black gangs, Hispanic gangs, biker gangs, Nazi gangs, and what do all of them have in common. POVERTY! Should we lump in honest poor people based on race because you happen to be a minority in their population?

Crime is the problem, not their fucking race or religion. You are going to see high gang activity in any poor population.

FYI the fuckwad congressman suggesting this McCarthy gestapo witch hunt on Muslims SUPPORTS THE IRA.

Our country demonized women, blacks and gays and committed genocide on Native Americans and put Japanese Americans in interment camps now and you think it is ok for our government to demonize Muslims and Mexicans because you have had a bad experience with a few?

Your bad experience is a result of lack of opportunity and family stability in a high population of a particular group. I am not going to lump an entire label of ANYONE into one camp.

I dare you to tell these Mexicans you'd leave your wallet with that they are the cause of the problem. I dare you to say to their face, "You're ok, I just don't want too many of you around me".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3562
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

 

 

I can personally say that my neighbors whom are both Mexican and one of my co-workers who is, are decent and honest non-violent people.

 

 

 

 

 And  I can truthfully say that Oscar Schindler was a Nazi who paradoxically favored the Jews.    So what ?   Did his behavior represent the vast majority of  his fellow facists ?   No.  

    

 

  I can personally attest to knowing a family of Mexican immigrants whom I would have no problem leaving my wallet with.   They are kind-hearted to a fault.  Again, so what ?     What is most important is that a great preponderance of the hispanic population in my area ( Texas )  have come to represent the lowest common denominator in term of their moral turpitude.   Statistically speaking the group as a whole is cornering the market on such things as gang activity, highest drop out rate of any ethnic group in the US, domestic violence rates, driving under the influence ( a rash of Hispanic drivers driving against the flow of traffic on an interstate highway ) ,  frequent charges of animal cruelty ( cock fighting and even worse ), etc.  

  

    Individual examples of admirable behavior mean nothing if they only represent the exception to an overall pattern.  

 

  I have no problem with maintaining  an attitude of  threat assessment no matter the group under scrutiny.   My evaluation is based upon their actions alone.   

 

And because IN your local, because Mexicans represent a majority of crime that means all Mexicans in your area and in America for that matter should be lumped together? By that standard we should lump all urban blacks together because they constitute most of the crime because they have a higher population in urban settings.

You don't get it. If you have a majority population ANYWHERE, then that majority will have a minority of bad apples in that group that represents the ratio of the majority.

In France the majority of prisoners ARE FRENCH because the majority of people in that country are French.

You live in a high population of Hispanics so the minority of Hispanic will represent the ratio of that population of crime.

DONT make race the fucking issue.

There are black gangs, Hispanic gangs, biker gangs, Nazi gangs, and what do all of them have in common. POVERTY! Should we lump in honest poor people based on race because you happen to be a minority in their population?

Crime is the problem, not their fucking race or religion. You are going to see high gang activity in any poor population.

FYI the fuckwad congressman suggesting this McCarthy gestapo witch hunt on Muslims SUPPORTS THE IRA.

Our country demonized women, blacks and gays and committed genocide on Native Americans and put Japanese Americans in interment camps now and you think it is ok for our government to demonize Muslims and Mexicans because you have had a bad experience with a few?

Your bad experience is a result of lack of opportunity and family stability in a high population of a particular group. I am not going to lump an entire label of ANYONE into one camp.

I dare you to tell these Mexicans you'd leave your wallet with that they are the cause of the problem. I dare you to say to their face, "You're ok, I just don't want too many of you around me".

 

  God damn you !  Race isn't the issue you fucking idiot !      I just told you that behavior alone is my measuring stick.      PS the mexicans that I hold in high regard frequently agree with the same observations as myself and are in fact a source of additional info.   The wife no longer cuts hair because her Mexican husband grew tired of hearing about her hispanic male customers constantly hitting on her, among other things.   

  I'm so sick of your god dammed pious bull shit !

   PS, law enforcement in Texas has put out a warning for college student to not party in Mexico during spring break  ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/earlyshow/main20038821.shtml  )  because there's a significant possibility that they will become victims of drug gangs.   Oops !   Oh no, more FEAR MONGERING !  

    

 Also, you have no fucking idea as to what conversations or opinions that I have already expressed to hispanics that I work with concerning this problem.  Fuck off !!!

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3562
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Oh yeah, since your so

  Oh yeah, since your so big on issuing challenges why don't you spend a few months vacationing in Nuevo Laredo ?    Go around flashing your tourists money or whatever, you'll be lucky if the only thing you lose is your cash.    

    Statistics aren't racist !

 

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR201080103481.html

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4280
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 The Mexican Mafia is

 The Mexican Mafia is gaining a lot of power in certain parts of our country, and is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Prozac is right, it isn't about racism. However, it is about race. The Mexican Mafia is extremely racist and has cornered the drug trade. It virtually rules Mexico, and if we don't do something about it, it will also rule over parts of the US.

 

Although, like with the Muslims, it is a problem we need to keep in perspective. It does not do any good spending resources on arresting Mexicans working to build buildings. Most of them are honest workers. It is the ones coming across the border and not getting legitimate jobs we should be focusing on. Or of course, we can simply legalize drugs and cut the legs out from under the mafia. Many people go into prison as simple drug users and come out as hardened gang members. It wouldn't get rid of the gangs completely, nothing would, but it would weaken the mafia substantially, just like repeal of prohibition weakened the Italian mob. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is not true.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Muslim Americans are simply the new "niggers" in our society.

 

Being nervous about a group that continually generates new nutters who endeavour to kill people can't be described as you are doing here - as racist. Guys like McVeigh can't be included in the pile - he was a one off dingbat.

There's a clear connection globally between jihad, suicide attacks and islamic doctrine. Sure, we should target only those who perpetrate this sort of behaviour but you have to ask who it is that does so. In Oz we've had 5 or 6 terror attacks thwarted in the past couple of years. All were planned by muslim men who in court used the koran as justification for their planned murders.

Trying to bolt anti-theism to racism smacks to me of an attempt to quash legitimate criticism of a group that poses a clear threat. I know you will disagree with me, Brian, which is fair enough. But next time some muslim nutbag attacks a civilian target in the west I'll get to say I told you so.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Brian37 wrote:

Muslim Americans are simply the new "niggers" in our society.

 

Being nervous about a group that continually generates new nutters who endeavour to kill people can't be described as you are doing here - as racist. Guys like McVeigh can't be included in the pile - he was a one off dingbat.

There's a clear connection globally between jihad, suicide attacks and islamic doctrine. Sure, we should target only those who perpetrate this sort of behaviour but you have to ask who it is that does so. In Oz we've had 5 or 6 terror attacks thwarted in the past couple of years. All were planned by muslim men who in court used the koran as justification for their planned murders.

Trying to bolt anti-theism to racism smacks to me of an attempt to quash legitimate criticism of a group that poses a clear threat. I know you will disagree with me, Brian, which is fair enough. But next time some muslim nutbag attacks a civilian target in the west I'll get to say I told you so.

 

 

Paranoia is not the way to lead. We rightfully want the east to get out of their tribal bullshit and the current state of Islamic states are stuck in the past. NO ONE, especially not me, is going to deny that.

But as a nation that has, from day one, always been a nation of people "from over there" I think it sends a bad message to the world that we cannot, or wont tolerate differences, especially with the words "no religious test", in  our constitution.

I still say that while Muslim terrorists should be watched, you have more of a threat of dying from domestic crime or a car crash than you do because of a Muslim terrorist. I don't think it helps us to scare the shit out of honest citizens who hold the Muslim faith by treating them like the Japanese of WW2.

And it is bullshit to say because of tactic, that makes Christianity less dangerous. Right wingers and nutcase groups all over this country have done everything to put people in office long term that if they get enough power and create a monopoly, would do far worse to dissent than any Muslim terrorist.

McCarthy tactics are nothing but selling fear. You are merely going to drive away people who would help us otherwise.

This is no different than the mistrust of police in a crime neighborhood. They assume the guilt of everyone and the mistrust is created to allow the crime to continue.

We are a pluralistic nation and I don't think we should promote presumption of guilt, especially based on label.

This is not about Islam as an ideology. It is about what kind of nation we want to be long term and how we should treat fellow citizens. Presumption of guilt is not a nation I want to live in.

Presumption of guilt and fear of outsiders is what they do, it is what monochromatic states do. I'd like to think my country can do better by treating others better than they treat us.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well, Brian.

 

Yours is a position that works so long as we all agree to elevate the rights of man. If a particular group is in dissent, such a mindset on our part simply leaves the tolerant powerless. I can't help thinking of western nations and western welfare systems as being a bit like the avian hosts of cuckoo eggs. In any case, there seems to be debate and argument about this issue in the west and questioning the moral consistency of fundamentalist religions, forcing them to examine themselves, is pretty much all we can do.

I would not disagree that christianity has a past every bit as ugly as modern islam. But tense is the key here. When islam has its enlightenment, the chance of which remains exceedingly remote, I'll sing a different tune.

 

P.S. I agree we should treat other countries as they treat us. Denying muslims a right to public worship a la Saudi Arabia sounds like the perfect lesson to me.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Yours is a position that works so long as we all agree to elevate the rights of man. If a particular group is in dissent, such a mindset on our part simply leaves the tolerant powerless. I can't help thinking of western nations and western welfare systems as being a bit like the avian hosts of cuckoo eggs. In any case, there seems to be debate and argument about this issue in the west and questioning the moral consistency of fundamentalist religions, forcing them to examine themselves, is pretty much all we can do.

I would not disagree that christianity has a past every bit as ugly as modern islam. But tense is the key here. When islam has its enlightenment, the chance of which remains exceedingly remote, I'll sing a different tune.

 

P.S. I agree we should treat other countries as they treat us. Denying muslims a right to public worship a la Saudi Arabia sounds like the perfect lesson to me.

 

The parts of the middle east are having their age of enlightenment. Will it last  is a different story. You want to assume the worst case senerio. Im saying people have done that in the past only for life to continue without that happening. I refuse to live my life in fear of others. Our country is strong enough to handle our diversity and it is strong, because we have the ability to dissagree and dissent.

I am more concerned with the right wing in this country than I am with Muslims, but even then, as long as free speech and voting are protected, whatever power they have now, does not have to stay that way.

It is up to us to maintain our freedom and after 200 years of continual population change, influx of others and societal norms chaning, I think we will be fine. I think Muslims can fit in fine here and whatever nuts that do manage to make it here wont last.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3562
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:]   I am

Brian37 wrote:

]

 

 

 

 

 

I am more concerned with the right wing in this country ....

 

 

 

 

   Right wingers are the new "niggers"  in your personal view right Brian ?  You seem to have a tendency toward your own form of fear mongering.      I guess "paranoia" is the way to lead as long as it suits your purposes......hypocrite.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

]

 

 

 

 

 

I am more concerned with the right wing in this country ....

 

 

 

 

   Right wingers are the new "niggers"  in your personal view right Brian ?  You seem to have a tendency toward your own form of fear mongering.      I guess "paranoia" is the way to lead as long as it suits your purposes......hypocrite.

No, the difference is that the right wing DOES have the right to be politically active. But just like they think atheists and muslims at best should sit at the back of the political bus, whatever threat they are to my position, I would not use the same tactic you are suggesting we use on Muslims. That is McCarthism.

The right are a threat to my position. They want to take away women's rights to control their own bodies. They want to keep gays out of the Military and prevent them from being married and falsely think that the Constitution was handed down to us by Jesus. They want to protect corporate America at the expense of the middle and poor classes.

They have had as much a history of religious bigotry of outsiders as Muslims. My point is the way to be vigilant isn't to presume guilt via spying on your own, but to use your own free speech to counter what you dissagree with.

The difference between you and I isn't going after violent people. There is no disagreement that my detractors on the right should and do have a voice.

The difference is TACTIC, not ideology.

I do see the right as a threat, but I would not use law to spy on a fellow citizen no matter their label. I would use the common law of probable  cause before going after anyone for any reason for any suspected crime. I would not parade my detractors out like zoo animals by force of congress simply because I might fear where they want to take the country. If I want to make my detractors look like idiots I have my own free speech. I don't need to put a gun to Pat Robertson's head, for example, to make him look like the idiot he is.

Everyone has their detractors and people they don't like and people they fear. What I wont do is let that fear destroy the common law all labels live under. Congress should not be parading an entire label like zoo animals, no matter what label they hold, even the people I don't like.

Free speech is enough to take care of the people I don't like. If my neighbor has not broken the law, then I have no business dragging them into a court or in front of congress merely because I don't like them.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We have had congress do this

We have had congress do this on other subjects where I went, "what the fuck?" Just because it happens doesn't make it right. Our system is imperfect.

I remember when they paraded the record industry in front of congress when Dee Snyder basically said, "Who the fuck do you think you are".

I couldn't understand why congress got involved with the baseball steroid issue.

And Janet's titty gate was another one I didn't understand. That should have been a local law enforcement issue and the networks didn't commit a crime.

I certainly didn't like congress accusing Hollywood actors and political activists of being commies back then.

Unless you have probable cause that a crime is being committed your fear of others is just that.

I am not a hypocrite for having enemies. It is foolish to say humans dont. I am talking about long term what kind of society we want to be and what kind of government we want to live under.

I do want to defeat the right wing, but I will not do it by presuming guilt via force of law by parading my detractors around like zoo animals in front of congress. Untill you have evidence that an investigation is needed, merely assuming they might do something, is not enough.

I do want to defeat the right wing fear mongers and their anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-atheist fearmongering. I do want to defeat their continuing corporate monopoly of our congress.

I have the weapon I need, and that is my own voice.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3562
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  I have no faith in the

  I have no faith in the Congress, whether it  be controlled by the political left or the right.  I have very little faith in our government  period.  We are a nation of fools and our best days are behind us.  We are past the tipping point.

 

  I do not advocate for anything but peaceful co-existence among all humans.  The difference between our views is that I see diversity as a trap.  It promises much but delivers little.  You cannot change human nature ( ie, tribalism )  by legislation or by shame.  The majority of every one will continue to prefer their own cliques.  If you leave them alone they will almost always segregate themselves. 

  America is awash in identity politics.  That is not going away....ever.  

 

 Keep stuffing more and more "ingredients" into the already crowded cultural melting pot.  My prediction is that the natural competition between groups ( political, ethnic, religious or otherwise ) will eventually bring the pot to boil and simply blow the lid off.

   Diversity does not ensure positive results. Why would it ?  

Diversity is like lighting the fuse on a stick of dynamite and hoping that it doesn't blow up in your face. 

 The proof is as near as today's headlines.

 

 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  Oh

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Oh yeah, since your so big on issuing challenges why don't you spend a few months vacationing in Nuevo Laredo ?    Go around flashing your tourists money or whatever, you'll be lucky if the only thing you lose is your cash.    

    Statistics aren't racist !

 

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR201080103481.html

Right, statistics are not racist. In murder cases statistically you find it is someone the person knows, such as a family member or neighborhood member. But this goes way beyond checking into the "usual suspects". But this isn't simply someone reporting a murder and then the police investigating the victims family or friends. This is a presumption of guilt based on label.

As I said, in any given population, the minority that commit crimes are going to reflect the majority of people who live in that group.

Mexicans may constitute the majority of crime IF the population is mostly Mexican. But when you take into account the entire population of Mexico, most Mexicans are not violent criminals.

Islam in it's current state in the East is 200 years behind the rest of the world. But, there are plenty of people within Islam that we should not presume guilt merely by guilt by association.

This tactic is no different than "Throw them all in jail and if we take a few innocent people out with them, at least we are safe".

That undermines, long term, what kind of society we want to live in. We are atheists, I don't think you would take the same attitude if the majority of Christians tried that tactic with us. We already had a sitting president say, "I don't think atheists should be considered citizens".

If it is not about racism or fear, then WE as a nation need to set the example the theocracies in the east don't. They are the nations that don't provide political competition outside there sect of Islam. They are the first to accuse non-Muslims of treason, merely for opening their mouths. They will drag you off the street for no other reason than you don't believe in Allah.

Even in the case of Mexicans, because there are many who are citizens born or naturalized, I am not willing to throw the constitution out the fucking window even if a majority of Mexicans are committing crimes. If they are illegal, deport them, fine. But I am not willing to risk the freedom of ANYONE, Mexican or Muslim, who has not done a damned thing wrong, because it "might" make us safer. One innocent person in jail is one too many.

The issue is what rights would you want if people feared you and know you didn't do anything wrong. Guilt by association is what this advocates.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3562
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Oh yeah, since your so big on issuing challenges why don't you spend a few months vacationing in Nuevo Laredo ?    Go around flashing your tourists money or whatever, you'll be lucky if the only thing you lose is your cash.    

    Statistics aren't racist !

 

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR201080103481.html

Right, statistics are not racist. In murder cases statistically you find it is someone the person knows, such as a family member or neighborhood member. But this goes way beyond checking into the "usual suspects". But this isn't simply someone reporting a murder and then the police investigating the victims family or friends. This is a presumption of guilt based on label.

As I said, in any given population, the minority that commit crimes are going to reflect the majority of people who live in that group.

Mexicans may constitute the majority of crime IF the population is mostly Mexican. But when you take into account the entire population of Mexico, most Mexicans are not violent criminals.

Islam in it's current state in the East is 200 years behind the rest of the world. But, there are plenty of people within Islam that we should not presume guilt merely by guilt by association.

This tactic is no different than "Throw them all in jail and if we take a few innocent people out with them, at least we are safe".

That undermines, long term, what kind of society we want to live in. We are atheists, I don't think you would take the same attitude if the majority of Christians tried that tactic with us. We already had a sitting president say, "I don't think atheists should be considered citizens".

If it is not about racism or fear, then WE as a nation need to set the example the theocracies in the east don't. They are the nations that don't provide political competition outside there sect of Islam. They are the first to accuse non-Muslims of treason, merely for opening their mouths. They will drag you off the street for no other reason than you don't believe in Allah.

Even in the case of Mexicans, because there are many who are citizens born or naturalized, I am not willing to throw the constitution out the fucking window even if a majority of Mexicans are committing crimes. If they are illegal, deport them, fine. But I am not willing to risk the freedom of ANYONE, Mexican or Muslim, who has not done a damned thing wrong, because it "might" make us safer. One innocent person in jail is one too many.

The issue is what rights would you want if people feared you and know you didn't do anything wrong. Guilt by association is what this advocates.

 

 

  Seriously Brian, I really don't give a shit anymore.   I'm thoroughly sick of the human race and it's foolishness.  I'm sick of these kind of discussions, too.  It's pointless.   Let the whole fucking world move into the US if that's what makes you happy. 

  Just keep all the human cattle as far away from me as possible because if it walks on two legs it's my enemy.

 

  I'm done.

 

     

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

 

 

I can personally say that my neighbors whom are both Mexican and one of my co-workers who is, are decent and honest non-violent people.

 

 

 

 

 And  I can truthfully say that Oscar Schindler was a Nazi who paradoxically favored the Jews.    So what ?   Did his behavior represent the vast majority of  his fellow facists ?   No.  

    

 

  I can personally attest to knowing a family of Mexican immigrants whom I would have no problem leaving my wallet with.   They are kind-hearted to a fault.  Again, so what ?     What is most important is that a great preponderance of the hispanic population in my area ( Texas )  have come to represent the lowest common denominator in term of their moral turpitude.   Statistically speaking the group as a whole is cornering the market on such things as gang activity, highest drop out rate of any ethnic group in the US, domestic violence rates, driving under the influence ( a rash of Hispanic drivers driving against the flow of traffic on an interstate highway ) ,  frequent charges of animal cruelty ( cock fighting and even worse ), etc.  

  

    Individual examples of admirable behavior mean nothing if they only represent the exception to an overall pattern.  

 

  I have no problem with maintaining  an attitude of  threat assessment no matter the group under scrutiny.   My evaluation is based upon their actions alone.   

 

And because IN your local, because Mexicans represent a majority of crime that means all Mexicans in your area and in America for that matter should be lumped together? By that standard we should lump all urban blacks together because they constitute most of the crime because they have a higher population in urban settings.

You don't get it. If you have a majority population ANYWHERE, then that majority will have a minority of bad apples in that group that represents the ratio of the majority.

In France the majority of prisoners ARE FRENCH because the majority of people in that country are French.

You live in a high population of Hispanics so the minority of Hispanic will represent the ratio of that population of crime.

DONT make race the fucking issue.

There are black gangs, Hispanic gangs, biker gangs, Nazi gangs, and what do all of them have in common. POVERTY! Should we lump in honest poor people based on race because you happen to be a minority in their population?

Crime is the problem, not their fucking race or religion. You are going to see high gang activity in any poor population.

FYI the fuckwad congressman suggesting this McCarthy gestapo witch hunt on Muslims SUPPORTS THE IRA.

Our country demonized women, blacks and gays and committed genocide on Native Americans and put Japanese Americans in interment camps now and you think it is ok for our government to demonize Muslims and Mexicans because you have had a bad experience with a few?

Your bad experience is a result of lack of opportunity and family stability in a high population of a particular group. I am not going to lump an entire label of ANYONE into one camp.

I dare you to tell these Mexicans you'd leave your wallet with that they are the cause of the problem. I dare you to say to their face, "You're ok, I just don't want too many of you around me".

 

  God damn you !  Race isn't the issue you fucking idiot !      I just told you that behavior alone is my measuring stick.      PS the mexicans that I hold in high regard frequently agree with the same observations as myself and are in fact a source of additional info.   The wife no longer cuts hair because her Mexican husband grew tired of hearing about her hispanic male customers constantly hitting on her, among other things.   

  I'm so sick of your god dammed pious bull shit !

   PS, law enforcement in Texas has put out a warning for college student to not party in Mexico during spring break  ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/earlyshow/main20038821.shtml  )  because there's a significant possibility that they will become victims of drug gangs.   Oops !   Oh no, more FEAR MONGERING !  

    

 Also, you have no fucking idea as to what conversations or opinions that I have already expressed to hispanics that I work with concerning this problem.  Fuck off !!!

Crime is the fucking problem, location is the problem. You are making what should be a human existence issue into a label issue. The problem is conditions, not labels.

Of course this person was murdered by Mexicans because that is who constitutes that population of that area. If a murder is committed in France or Germany, WHAT A FUCKING SHOCK, the murderer is most likely going to be French or German.

SO THE FUCK WHAT? What I am warning against is dragging people who have not done anything wrong into jail because of what others have done.

LABELS are going to exist and people are going to believe what they believe. This has to do with your own fucking rights and what you would want for yourself when you know you have not done anything wrong. This cuts to the core of what an individual should want for themselves if they are falsely accused.

Your tactic is "who cares who we fuck over as long as we are safe"

It is easy to solve problems with blanket statements "If we just get rid of this group or that group, everything will be fine". That is what theism sells and fascism sells.

You want to defeat theism? You are not going to do it with the same "my way or the highway" attitude they have. This is merely a reflection of the same tribalism we evolved as a species to use to survive.

Utopias do not exist and never will and all 7 billion of us will never agree on all things all the time. But what our species can agree on is not wanting to be falsely accused by proxy of label.

You want to investigate? I agree we should, any crime by any person. But that should be based on evidence, not speculation, not fear, not "they might do something".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4280
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Oh yeah, since your so big on issuing challenges why don't you spend a few months vacationing in Nuevo Laredo ?    Go around flashing your tourists money or whatever, you'll be lucky if the only thing you lose is your cash.    

    Statistics aren't racist !

 

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR201080103481.html

Right, statistics are not racist. In murder cases statistically you find it is someone the person knows, such as a family member or neighborhood member. But this goes way beyond checking into the "usual suspects". But this isn't simply someone reporting a murder and then the police investigating the victims family or friends. This is a presumption of guilt based on label.

As I said, in any given population, the minority that commit crimes are going to reflect the majority of people who live in that group.

Mexicans may constitute the majority of crime IF the population is mostly Mexican. But when you take into account the entire population of Mexico, most Mexicans are not violent criminals.

Islam in it's current state in the East is 200 years behind the rest of the world. But, there are plenty of people within Islam that we should not presume guilt merely by guilt by association.

This tactic is no different than "Throw them all in jail and if we take a few innocent people out with them, at least we are safe".

That undermines, long term, what kind of society we want to live in. We are atheists, I don't think you would take the same attitude if the majority of Christians tried that tactic with us. We already had a sitting president say, "I don't think atheists should be considered citizens".

If it is not about racism or fear, then WE as a nation need to set the example the theocracies in the east don't. They are the nations that don't provide political competition outside there sect of Islam. They are the first to accuse non-Muslims of treason, merely for opening their mouths. They will drag you off the street for no other reason than you don't believe in Allah.

Even in the case of Mexicans, because there are many who are citizens born or naturalized, I am not willing to throw the constitution out the fucking window even if a majority of Mexicans are committing crimes. If they are illegal, deport them, fine. But I am not willing to risk the freedom of ANYONE, Mexican or Muslim, who has not done a damned thing wrong, because it "might" make us safer. One innocent person in jail is one too many.

The issue is what rights would you want if people feared you and know you didn't do anything wrong. Guilt by association is what this advocates.

 

 

 

Exactly whom has been thrown in jail for being Muslim? Who has said we should throw people in jail for being Muslim? Has Congressman King called anyone to testify for the purposes of accusing them of being a terrorist and smearing their reputation as McCarthy did? I haven't seen it. We know that some American Muslims have been radicalized, we know that they have carried out terrorist attacks, I think it is important that we understand why.

 

Of course, I hold no hope for any Congressional committee to have any kind of success. Committees by their nature are generally a waste of time and money. If we are lucky, the best we can hope for is that the next time the military KNOWS someone in its ranks is in contact with a terrorist it will do something about it rather than ignore it out of fear of offending Muslims. But that doesn't change the fact that your accusations of "McCarthyism" and all the rights that muslims are supposedly losing have no basis.

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Oh yeah, since your so big on issuing challenges why don't you spend a few months vacationing in Nuevo Laredo ?    Go around flashing your tourists money or whatever, you'll be lucky if the only thing you lose is your cash.    

    Statistics aren't racist !

 

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR201080103481.html

Right, statistics are not racist. In murder cases statistically you find it is someone the person knows, such as a family member or neighborhood member. But this goes way beyond checking into the "usual suspects". But this isn't simply someone reporting a murder and then the police investigating the victims family or friends. This is a presumption of guilt based on label.

As I said, in any given population, the minority that commit crimes are going to reflect the majority of people who live in that group.

Mexicans may constitute the majority of crime IF the population is mostly Mexican. But when you take into account the entire population of Mexico, most Mexicans are not violent criminals.

Islam in it's current state in the East is 200 years behind the rest of the world. But, there are plenty of people within Islam that we should not presume guilt merely by guilt by association.

This tactic is no different than "Throw them all in jail and if we take a few innocent people out with them, at least we are safe".

That undermines, long term, what kind of society we want to live in. We are atheists, I don't think you would take the same attitude if the majority of Christians tried that tactic with us. We already had a sitting president say, "I don't think atheists should be considered citizens".

If it is not about racism or fear, then WE as a nation need to set the example the theocracies in the east don't. They are the nations that don't provide political competition outside there sect of Islam. They are the first to accuse non-Muslims of treason, merely for opening their mouths. They will drag you off the street for no other reason than you don't believe in Allah.

Even in the case of Mexicans, because there are many who are citizens born or naturalized, I am not willing to throw the constitution out the fucking window even if a majority of Mexicans are committing crimes. If they are illegal, deport them, fine. But I am not willing to risk the freedom of ANYONE, Mexican or Muslim, who has not done a damned thing wrong, because it "might" make us safer. One innocent person in jail is one too many.

The issue is what rights would you want if people feared you and know you didn't do anything wrong. Guilt by association is what this advocates.

 

 

  Seriously Brian, I really don't give a shit anymore.   I'm thoroughly sick of the human race and it's foolishness.  I'm sick of these kind of discussions, too.  It's pointless.   Let the whole fucking world move into the US if that's what makes you happy. 

  Just keep all the human cattle as far away from me as possible because if it walks on two legs it's my enemy.

 

  I'm done.

 

     

Sometimes I feel that way too. The way our species beats the shit out of each other claiming some utopia morality and fails to see that really in the end it is all about becoming the alpha male, does get to me sometime. And in our current state, I really don't see things changing. But I am damn sure going to try to do my best to get humanity to accept a mere "fuck you" instead of a bullet.

We really are no different than any other life. We seek out resources and exploit them and fight any rival who competes for them.

But if I can help the world focus on what we have in common rather than our differences, we can at least delay our eventual extinction. Tribalism accelerates our finite ride.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I do not advocate for

Quote:
I do not advocate for anything but peaceful co-existence among all humans.  The difference between our views is that I see diversity as a trap.  It promises much but delivers little.  You cannot change human nature ( ie, tribalism )  by legislation or by shame.  The majority of every one will continue to prefer their own cliques.  If you leave them alone they will almost always segregate themselves.

Right, so the way to promote peaceful co-existence is to assume the guilt of everyone within a given label?

If diversity is a trap, and delivers little, then why has America gone from slave ownership to a black president?

Of course you cannot change human nature, but you can either focus on what we have in common or what divides us. Division is all about "in group" vs "out group" BUT, we also have those in our species who have  EMPATHY which is also part of our nature that looks at the positive in what we do have in common.

So it becomes a choice of what you want to focus on. You can shout all you want about what they are doing to hurt you but that does not change that humans all want the same thing. We all want food, shelter, love, and the dignity of survival.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 OK Brian, I don't think

 

OK Brian, I don't think anyone is looking for Muslims to be rounded up concentration camp style (well yah, someone probably is but that is not my point). Certainly most Americans aren't. Let a dozen terror cells get going like the the movie “The Siege” and that may change but right now, I think the general consensus is that most of us are not looking for outright internment.

 

Odds are that most of us do want to be safe. And seeing the trending patterns in Europe and Australia does erode the essential confidence that we can have real long term safety. And it is not just in other countries, it is here is the US as well.

 

Remember Fort Hood? That was not all that long ago. Did you hear any reports that we needed to well, “deal with the sand nigger problem”? What about 9/11? That was a while ago and from what I remember, we all put up flags.

 

Also, I would think that most people in the middle east are probably of similar mind as far as wanting to be safe. I don't know that much about life over there but they do have huge cities filled with people who read the newspaper on the way to work and go to the grocery store. Really. And then the stereotype of goat farmers almost certainly exists away from the cities as well.

 

Still, they do need something akin to the enlightenment. But where is that supposed to come from? In the west, scholars were a huge source of that thinking that then percolated down to the common people. So will that happen in Islam?

 

How about if Iman Rauf were to declare that it was the holy obligation of Muslims to reject the extremist nonsense? If he does that, I will lay a brick for his stupid Islamic community center. Right after that, I will nip next door for a drink.

 

Seriously, loose the violent bullshit and that is where the Muslim enlightenment begins. Until then, nobody can really be considered to be safe from the extremeists.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

OK Brian, I don't think anyone is looking for Muslims to be rounded up concentration camp style (well yah, someone probably is but that is not my point). Certainly most Americans aren't. Let a dozen terror cells get going like the the movie “The Siege” and that may change but right now, I think the general consensus is that most of us are not looking for outright internment.

 

Odds are that most of us do want to be safe. And seeing the trending patterns in Europe and Australia does erode the essential confidence that we can have real long term safety. And it is not just in other countries, it is here is the US as well.

 

Remember Fort Hood? That was not all that long ago. Did you hear any reports that we needed to well, “deal with the sand nigger problem”? What about 9/11? That was a while ago and from what I remember, we all put up flags.

 

Also, I would think that most people in the middle east are probably of similar mind as far as wanting to be safe. I don't know that much about life over there but they do have huge cities filled with people who read the newspaper on the way to work and go to the grocery store. Really. And then the stereotype of goat farmers almost certainly exists away from the cities as well.

 

Still, they do need something akin to the enlightenment. But where is that supposed to come from? In the west, scholars were a huge source of that thinking that then percolated down to the common people. So will that happen in Islam?

 

How about if Iman Rauf were to declare that it was the holy obligation of Muslims to reject the extremist nonsense? If he does that, I will lay a brick for his stupid Islamic community center. Right after that, I will nip next door for a drink.

 

Seriously, loose the violent bullshit and that is where the Muslim enlightenment begins. Until then, nobody can really be considered to be safe from the extremeists.

Ok, then why don't we at the same time say to Mexico, why don't you tell Mexicans to stop selling drugs and commiting murder?

Again, you are making this about labels and the real issues are conditions. You are not going to get people on your side if all you do is blame a label on what is basically a product of environment.

Work on the environment, dont beat the shit out of people who hold a different label.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 How about if Mexicans go

 

How about if Mexicans go to their government and ask for entry visas? We are willing to let lots of people in provided that they can pass a small bit of scrutiny.

 

Apparently, this is too damned much to ask. It is far better to just walk in or pay someone to smuggle you across the border. Therefore, they are criminals by default. Unless they are willing to live openly and hold regular jobs, then they have gone through channels to get in.

 

That is <1% of them.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

How about if Mexicans go to their government and ask for entry visas? We are willing to let lots of people in provided that they can pass a small bit of scrutiny.

 

Apparently, this is too damned much to ask. It is far better to just walk in or pay someone to smuggle you across the border. Therefore, they are criminals by default. Unless they are willing to live openly and hold regular jobs, then they have gone through channels to get in.

 

That is <1% of them.

So, if they are doing that, it is not because of their label, but because of conditions. ANY ANIMAL when it has what it needs it doesn't bother others. We are ONE species amongst many with the same behaviors as other species.

Utilll humanity recognizes that we are not special tribal labels will continue to divide us.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4280
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: ANY ANIMAL

Brian37 wrote:
 ANY ANIMAL when it has what it needs it doesn't bother others.

Really???? I think you might want to edit that one. There are plenty of cases where humans have what they need but bother others. Nor are we unique in that respect. Haven't you ever seen a dog chase a small animal just for kicks? All sorts of animals bother others, even when their basic needs are met.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This is why

Brian37 wrote:

This is why morality cannot be label based. It sets up an "out group" vs "in group".

It seems to me their religion and their holy groups do this. You have the "in group" of believers and the "out group" of infidels.

Brian37 wrote:

I find it sick that these people who would advocate McCarthy tactics can face elected Senator and Muslim Keith Elleson and try to sell him the idea that Muslims have rights, but only if we can snoop on them ignoring all the other bigger problems we have.

If we don't treat religious groups the same as any other group, criminal gangs will just hide behind religious freedom. Why can the Feds infiltrate Mexican drug gangs but not mosques if we have equally strong evidence for criminal activity?

 

Brian37 wrote:

The real issue globally is that there are people, who if left unchecked, will do desperate things because they fell left out or cornered.

This is a big myth. What terrorists have come from "desperate" situations? The 9/11 hijackers, the underwear bomber, etc.. all seem to come from middle class families. They all had pleanty of economic opportunities.

Brian37 wrote:

I have more of a chance being robbed by a drug attic than I do being blown up. The focus should be on people who display desperate behavior, not their label.

But going forward, who has the greatest potential to launch attacks using nukes, dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons? Not the homeless drug addict, it is the Muslim extremist. Not someone motivated by desperate poverty, but by religion and racism.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Being

Atheistextremist wrote:
Being nervous about a group that continually generates new nutters who endeavour to kill people can't be described as you are doing here - as racist. Guys like McVeigh can't be included in the pile - he was a one off dingbat.

There's a clear connection globally between jihad, suicide attacks and islamic doctrine. Sure, we should target only those who perpetrate this sort of behaviour but you have to ask who it is that does so. In Oz we've had 5 or 6 terror attacks thwarted in the past couple of years. All were planned by muslim men who in court used the koran as justification for their planned murders.

Trying to bolt anti-theism to racism smacks to me of an attempt to quash legitimate criticism of a group that poses a clear threat. I know you will disagree with me, Brian, which is fair enough. But next time some muslim nutbag attacks a civilian target in the west I'll get to say I told you so.

What... you don't agree with the reasoning that "if we disapprove of Wacko A, we must also focus on Wacko B and C"?

I can't say I'm fond of Brian's hangup on "pluralism", and I've yet to see any real benefit from having an entire nation made up of "diverse cultural backgrounds", over a culturally homogenized one, as a benefit is yet to be demonstrated. I could care less if my neighbors are all composed of blacks, whites, Indians, turks, Indonesians, or even arabs. But if they bring their sati and their honor killings from the native homeland, I'm going to grab a pitchfork and a torch of my own.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao

Kapkao wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Being nervous about a group that continually generates new nutters who endeavour to kill people can't be described as you are doing here - as racist. Guys like McVeigh can't be included in the pile - he was a one off dingbat.

There's a clear connection globally between jihad, suicide attacks and islamic doctrine. Sure, we should target only those who perpetrate this sort of behaviour but you have to ask who it is that does so. In Oz we've had 5 or 6 terror attacks thwarted in the past couple of years. All were planned by muslim men who in court used the koran as justification for their planned murders.

Trying to bolt anti-theism to racism smacks to me of an attempt to quash legitimate criticism of a group that poses a clear threat. I know you will disagree with me, Brian, which is fair enough. But next time some muslim nutbag attacks a civilian target in the west I'll get to say I told you so.

What... you don't agree with the reasoning that "if we disapprove of Wacko A, we must also focus on Wacko B and C"?

I can't say I'm fond of Brian's hangup on "pluralism", and I've yet to see any real benefit from having an entire nation made up of "diverse cultural backgrounds", over a culturally homogenized one, as a benefit is yet to be demonstrated. I could care less if my neighbors are all composed of blacks, whites, Indians, turks, Indonesians, or even arabs. But if they bring their sati and their honor killings from the native homeland, I'm going to grab a pitchfork and a torch of my own.

This is the same problem I have with economic divisions on how to go about solving problems.

LIFE IS NOT A SCRIPT AND THERE IS NO BLANKET SOLUTION

But what humanity DOES have in common is the capability of having a natural reaction to being falsely accused of something.

Whatever we do I think it is dangerous LONG TERM, to make it about labels and not evidence. I am all for going after Islam in it's current state in the East. What I wont do is support a climate of "Lets just sweep them all up even if we take out a few innocent people along with them"

Again, this isn't about labels. This is about what we should want as individuals if ever put in the position of being accused of something.  This is a human rights issue.

You need to think about a point in your life, not even about something criminal, where you got punished by a teacher, or fired by a boss, or spanked by your parents, for something you know you didn't do.

THAT on a national scale, is a dangerous thing to neglect and forget FOR EVERYONE. This is about what kind of country we as a society want to live in.

Whatever policies we foster in this country should be EVIDENCE based, not fear based.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao

Kapkao wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Being nervous about a group that continually generates new nutters who endeavour to kill people can't be described as you are doing here - as racist. Guys like McVeigh can't be included in the pile - he was a one off dingbat.

There's a clear connection globally between jihad, suicide attacks and islamic doctrine. Sure, we should target only those who perpetrate this sort of behaviour but you have to ask who it is that does so. In Oz we've had 5 or 6 terror attacks thwarted in the past couple of years. All were planned by muslim men who in court used the koran as justification for their planned murders.

Trying to bolt anti-theism to racism smacks to me of an attempt to quash legitimate criticism of a group that poses a clear threat. I know you will disagree with me, Brian, which is fair enough. But next time some muslim nutbag attacks a civilian target in the west I'll get to say I told you so.

What... you don't agree with the reasoning that "if we disapprove of Wacko A, we must also focus on Wacko B and C"?

I can't say I'm fond of Brian's hangup on "pluralism", and I've yet to see any real benefit from having an entire nation made up of "diverse cultural backgrounds", over a culturally homogenized one, as a benefit is yet to be demonstrated. I could care less if my neighbors are all composed of blacks, whites, Indians, turks, Indonesians, or even arabs. But if they bring their sati and their honor killings from the native homeland, I'm going to grab a pitchfork and a torch of my own.

 

I think I agree.  This is what I understood the British PM to mean when he said multiculturalism has failed.

 

If a particular society values its culture, there is no evidence that it can keep that culture against a massive influx of ideologically opposed immigrants.  In the U.S. it isn't so bad because the Mexican culture really isn't all that different from the 'typical' American culture.  They come from a secular society with some democratic principles, even if it is all fucked up with the drug stuff right now.  They can assimilate.  That doesn't seem to be the case for these mass Islamic migrations in Europe though, they don't *want* to assimilate, they don't come from cultures with democratic, secular ideals and that is dangerous to the host culture.  Worse yet, the alien culture outbreeds the locals and the kids are discouraged from integrating as well.

 

Maybe that is using too broad a brush, I don't know.  Maybe the impression I get from the media is overstating the problem, that wouldn't shock me.  

 

Either way, it isn't about the people, it is about the culture the people want.  You can't hippie your way out of that if the incoming folks don't want to adopt your cultural principles...so you have limited options.

1) Try to convince them your culture *is* something they want to adopt, but let them in.

2) Keep them out, unless they can prove they *want* to adopt your culture.

3) Let them in, but attempt to force compliance.

4) Keep the whole cultural group out.

5) Let them in, let them do what they want, hope the resulting culture/mix is acceptable.

 

Other options?  I have a lot of sympathy for both sides here, there aren't easy things, especially when the 'host' culture has immigrant influx as part of it's own identity.

I don't know what the answer is, but I'll be honest, I don't want fundamentalist Islamic culture, and I'd sacrifice some of the nicer parts of my own national identity to keep it out.  That goes for any culture that does not respect the secular rule of law, including those varieties *inside* already.  I have as much problem with liberal Muslims as I do with liberal Christians, which is to say, 'not much', but I have to draw the line somewhere.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I just want to clarify a

I just want to clarify a misconception people have (and on no fault of their own) about Middle Eastern countries and people who emmigrate to the West. 

 

For most Arab countries, the people inside think that their own governments are secular dictators. Muslims are not free to practice thier own religion in the Middle East. So, ironically, many Muslims flee the middle east because of religious persecution. In Syria for example, the Imams were monitered and could only give government approved sermons and each Imam had to pray for the president/dictator. The previous ruler of Syria (Hafiz Assad) needed to control religion in order to solidify his rule. He also had the problem of the Muslim Brotherhood fighting against him, so he cracked down even harder on religion. Thus, many muslims fled the oppression of their dictatorial rulers to the freedom of the west. Ironically, we have 'too' much freedom here. Many muslims immigrants want something inbetween america and their home countries. They want a prosperous nation that follows sharia.

 

This only applies to immigrant Muslims, second and third generation muslims born in the west are an entirely different story. Most become moderately religious once a week mosque/church goers, but some become disillusioned with our standards of democracy and freedom and eventually radicalize. 

 

Many muslims face a dilemma, they don't like america and they don't like their home country, their beliefs are not embodied in law anywhere in the world. 

 

The main problem, in my opinion, is that Quranic literalists are not the minority, they are the orthodox and majority position. Anyone attempting to bring to light that the Quran is not the literal word of Allah is threatened/killed. See this article for a nice overview of the history of the Quran: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/4024/3/

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:They come

mellestad wrote:
They come from a secular society with some democratic principles, even if it is all fucked up with the drug stuff right now.  They can assimilate.

'Can be' is a long way away from 'does', especially so in that particular case. Secular, democratic principles? If you mean "use wealthy neighbors as a societal crutch", then yeah... they're democratic all right. And I'm sure Arcadian is grateful for the fruits of our labors, and keeping his people fat and happy. Unless they move into a place with grave health concerns, which happened somewhat near where I live. Apparently there were leaking containers of mercury in the basement where they live. Everyone was sick within days, including an 11th month old.

Their society is neither secular or democratic, nor has it really ever been.

 

 

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I have no faith in the Congress, whether it  be controlled by the political left or the right.  I have very little faith in our government  period.  We are a nation of fools and our best days are behind us.  We are past the tipping point.

 

  I do not advocate for anything but peaceful co-existence among all humans.  The difference between our views is that I see diversity as a trap.  It promises much but delivers little.  You cannot change human nature ( ie, tribalism )  by legislation or by shame.  The majority of every one will continue to prefer their own cliques.  If you leave them alone they will almost always segregate themselves. 

I agree.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Prozac is right, it isn't about racism. However, it is about race.

And culture, and upbringing, education, and religion, etc...

Sometimes, you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy.

That's just the reality.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris