Well said^^
- 215
Would you rather be gay in the US/Europe or in the Middle East? The Muslims are far more brutal to gays than Christians are, and no amount of political correctness and finger pointing at a few isolated Christian nut jobs is going to change that.MarkHaversham wrote: If you think gays aren't frequently killed by Western Christians, I imagine you are amazed by many things that most consider commonplace.
- 1,320
At the #BringThemHere march in the Loop in September, I saw Muslim women in hijab alongside people wearing rainbow flags, a Catholic priest, secular progressives, families who drove in from the suburbs, a group of evangelicals praying beforehand off to the side, Wash U students and a group of Muslims doing evening prayers on a carpet afterward. It was beautiful.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about receiving refugees yet. It's easy to say that becoming a victim of terrorism is a 1 in 20 million chance, but when you're the one in the restaurant or concert hall and everyone around you is getting executed, well, statistics don't mean a whole lot.
On the other hand, I do believe that America should try to live up to its values and welcome the world's tired and downtrodden. I'm a romantic who buys the "shining light on the hill" narrative. And there's a couple of factors that make America more capable of handling refugees than Europe. The first is the Atlantic Ocean, that wonderful barrier that has kept so many enemies a world away in our history. As has been pointed out, it's a lot easier for a terrorist to infiltrate the European flock of refugees and to ride the wave into the West than it is to cross the ocean. And second is that the American Muslim community is much more integrated into society than it is in many places in Europe. You're considered an American based on your ideals and beliefs. Anyone from anywhere in the world can come here, embrace the tenets of the Constitution, and be just as much as an American as I am. However, many European countries are facing an identity crisis due to refugees because, to many Europeans, being a German, or a Frenchman, or a Spaniard is a matter of blood.
And final thought, Chris Matthews said something on Hardball tonight that made me think a bit: "I know where the Free Syrian Army is - it's in Europe and it's trying to come here. There's an error in wanting to send Americans to fight Syria's battle while Syrians are coming here to live in America." His proposal was to train the refugees (male, fighting-age ones) and send them back to Syria to fight. Obviously, in reality it's way more complicated than that, but it underlines a point that he finished with: "Americans want to support a people that are willing to fight for their own country."
On the other hand, I do believe that America should try to live up to its values and welcome the world's tired and downtrodden. I'm a romantic who buys the "shining light on the hill" narrative. And there's a couple of factors that make America more capable of handling refugees than Europe. The first is the Atlantic Ocean, that wonderful barrier that has kept so many enemies a world away in our history. As has been pointed out, it's a lot easier for a terrorist to infiltrate the European flock of refugees and to ride the wave into the West than it is to cross the ocean. And second is that the American Muslim community is much more integrated into society than it is in many places in Europe. You're considered an American based on your ideals and beliefs. Anyone from anywhere in the world can come here, embrace the tenets of the Constitution, and be just as much as an American as I am. However, many European countries are facing an identity crisis due to refugees because, to many Europeans, being a German, or a Frenchman, or a Spaniard is a matter of blood.
And final thought, Chris Matthews said something on Hardball tonight that made me think a bit: "I know where the Free Syrian Army is - it's in Europe and it's trying to come here. There's an error in wanting to send Americans to fight Syria's battle while Syrians are coming here to live in America." His proposal was to train the refugees (male, fighting-age ones) and send them back to Syria to fight. Obviously, in reality it's way more complicated than that, but it underlines a point that he finished with: "Americans want to support a people that are willing to fight for their own country."
- 9,541
We've had about 750,000 refugees enter the US since 9/11. And 0 charged for domestic terrorism. Meanwhile we've had hundreds of white males commit hundreds of mass shootings, shall the state of mo ban all white males?
What's happening in Europe in is they are showing up at high volume at the boarders and than going through the screening process once already in the country. Before any refugees gets to the US they go through a 12-20 month process.
What's happening in Europe in is they are showing up at high volume at the boarders and than going through the screening process once already in the country. Before any refugees gets to the US they go through a 12-20 month process.
- 1,868
This is exactly the problem with your logic. When a white Christian does something it's an "isolated nut job", but when a black guy or a Muslim does something it's a violent broken culture or whatever.Anglophile wrote:and no amount of political correctness and finger pointing at a few isolated Christian nut jobs is going to change that.
Well, when you're one of the thousands of people dead in a car accident for every person in that concert hall, the statistics will mean a whole lot more.shimmy wrote:I'm not quite sure how I feel about receiving refugees yet. It's easy to say that becoming a victim of terrorism is a 1 in 20 million chance, but when you're the one in the restaurant or concert hall and everyone around you is getting executed, well, statistics don't mean a whole lot.
That's not faulty logic that's just the reality. When a white Christian does something it normally is an isolated nut job and isn't funded and directed by an army/quasi-state that holds thousands of square miles of territory, boasts tens of thousands of fighters, rules hundreds of thousands of people, and is holding its own in a land war against multiple national governments on multiple fronts.MarkHaversham wrote: This is exactly the problem with your logic. When a white Christian does something it's an "isolated nut job", but when a black guy or a Muslim does something it's a violent broken culture or whatever.
It's interesting how ideologies take opposite sides of an argument when it's expedient to them. If we were talking about a mass shooting at a school and I came with an argument of "Well statistically speaking, you're much more likely to die in a car accident than a mass shooting, so don't worry about it, stuff happens" I am going to assume that you'd be singing a different tune. But, when the roles are reversed, it's apparently supposed to be an effective argument. It's not.MarkHaversham wrote:Well, when you're one of the thousands of people dead in a car accident for every person in that concert hall, the statistics will mean a whole lot more.
- 641
I would say, against the predictable emotional refute of many on this board, that the amount of black crime in cities like STL, CHI, NOLA, Balitmore, Detroit is terrorism.
Terrorism aims at making one not do things they are used to doing...Well, my family and I have cut back on the amount of time, and money, I spend in the city....A win for Webster Groves, a loss for the city...and I used to be a city resident.
Terrorism aims at making one not do things they are used to doing...Well, my family and I have cut back on the amount of time, and money, I spend in the city....A win for Webster Groves, a loss for the city...and I used to be a city resident.
- 1,868
Have you never heard of Nazi Germany? Besides, were you decidedly pro-Muslim until ISIS formed, then became anti-Muslim, and as soon as ISIS collapses I assume you'll be super pro-Muslim again? Or is ISIS just the current excuse for discriminating against Muslims?shimmy wrote:That's not faulty logic that's just the reality. When a white Christian does something it normally is an isolated nut job and isn't funded and directed by an army/quasi-state that holds thousands of square miles of territory, boasts tens of thousands of fighters, rules hundreds of thousands of people, and is holding its own in a land war against multiple national governments on multiple fronts.MarkHaversham wrote: This is exactly the problem with your logic. When a white Christian does something it's an "isolated nut job", but when a black guy or a Muslim does something it's a violent broken culture or whatever.
If gun deaths were as rare as terrorism deaths, I'd see your point. As a matter of fact, gun deaths are either the likeliest cause of death among young people, or a close second to cars. So I still think it makes perfect sense to focus on restricting ownership of death machines to prevent a leading cause of death instead of inflaming humanitarian crises to hypothetically maybe reduce the chance of extremely rare deaths.shimmy wrote: It's interesting how ideologies take opposite sides of an argument when it's expedient to them. If we were talking about a mass shooting at a school and I came with an argument of "Well statistically speaking, you're much more likely to die in a car accident than a mass shooting, so don't worry about it, stuff happens" I am going to assume that you'd be singing a different tune. But, when the roles are reversed, it's apparently supposed to be an effective argument. It's not.
But is black crime expressly intended to drive you away from the city, or is that just a secondary consequence? I don't think it's really "terrorism", even if it is terrifying (not that the distinction necessarily matters).sirshankalot wrote:I would say, against the predictable emotional refute of many on this board, that the amount of black crime in cities like STL, CHI, NOLA, Balitmore, Detroit is terrorism.
Terrorism aims at making one not do things they are used to doing...Well, my family and I have cut back on the amount of time, and money, I spend in the city....A win for Webster Groves, a loss for the city...and I used to be a city resident.
Yes, Nazi Germany rings a bell somewhere in my memory. If I remember history correctly, we invaded Nazi Germany with an army of millions, firebombed their cities without mercy, and still have tens of thousands of troops on their soil 70 years later. So you could be continuing your argument that extremist Christians are just as bad as extremist Muslims, and therefore we should be treating threats from each equally. This example means you're advocating for a much stronger and more violent response to Muslim extremists who are invading their neighbors. Total War, in fact. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're pointing out that we welcomed refugees from Nazi Germany during WWII.MarkHaversham wrote: Have you never heard of Nazi Germany? Besides, were you decidedly pro-Muslim until ISIS formed, then became anti-Muslim, and as soon as ISIS collapses I assume you'll be super pro-Muslim again? Or is ISIS just the current excuse for discriminating against Muslims?
And if that's the case, then I agree with you. I think we should be accepting Syrian refugees. However, I perfectly understand people's reservations about accepting them. I think the best approach to win the debate is to argue with American values, educate on the strength of our vetting system compared to Europe's overrun system, and not to use meaningless statistics comparing deliberate acts of slaughter meant to terrorize to vehicle accidents by saying "Well it probably won't happen to you, but if it does, sorry for the bad luck." Nor is it an effective strategy to call everyone with a fear of terrorists, who have expressed their desire and intent to commit terrorist attacks on American soil after just succeeding in a highly-coordinated attack on one of our biggest allies, a bigot, which is what your latter argument does.
- 1,868
There's a difference between fear of terrorists and fear of brown people. The first is irrational, the second is racist. Nobody has a right to go into a public form and make blanket, false generalizations about broad groups of people without being called on it. Even if we restrict our discussion to ISIL-sponsored terrorism, not all of them are brown people, and most of the Paris shooters were Europeans not Syrians.
And if you think statistics are meaningless for decision making, I welcome you to sell all your belongings and invest all your money in lottery tickets. When you hit the jackpot, all those statistics saying the lottery is a bad investment won't mean anything, after all. Statistics aren't meaningless; racist generalizations are meaningless.
And if you think statistics are meaningless for decision making, I welcome you to sell all your belongings and invest all your money in lottery tickets. When you hit the jackpot, all those statistics saying the lottery is a bad investment won't mean anything, after all. Statistics aren't meaningless; racist generalizations are meaningless.
- 641
MarkHaversham wrote:There's a difference between fear of terrorists and fear of brown people. The first is irrational, the second is racist. Nobody has a right to go into a public form and make blanket, false generalizations about broad groups of people without being called on it. Even if we restrict our discussion to ISIL-sponsored terrorism, not all of them are brown people, and most of the Paris shooters were Europeans not Syrians.
And if you think statistics are meaningless for decision making, I welcome you to sell all your belongings and invest all your money in lottery tickets. When you hit the jackpot, all those statistics saying the lottery is a bad investment won't mean anything, after all. Statistics aren't meaningless; racist generalizations are meaningless.
I don't know if this is directed at me or not but I have zero fear of black or brown people. I have fear of violent crime. That's why my city activity has decreased. I also don't do much in Jefferson County, the wild-ass meth freaks keep me away.
- 1,868
Well, as I said, I don't think violent crime is necessarily terrorism. Violent crime has various purposes like acquiring something or exacting vengeance. Terrorism is intended solely to spread panic, which is why fighting it by panicking and behaving irrationally is exactly the opposite of a proper response. Crime might change people's decisions, but that's not why the perpetrators are committing their crimes (usually).sirshankalot wrote: I don't know if this is directed at me or not but I have zero fear of black or brown people. I have fear of violent crime. That's why my city activity has decreased. I also don't do much in Jefferson County, the wild-ass meth freaks keep me away.
I understand your point that the chance of me being in a particular location when a particular terrorist conducts a particular attack is a matter of chance, and that the chance of all of those occurrences lining up perfectly are small. Even if I were a Parisian, the chance of me being in the Batalcan when the attack occurred was minuscule. However, the probability of the attack happening when the concert hall was at capacity is a given. Because unlike the power ball or a car accident that are a matter of conditions and random chance, a terrorist attack is a deliberate and planned event that is designed and has the intent to kill as many people as possible.MarkHaversham wrote:There's a difference between fear of terrorists and fear of brown people. The first is irrational, the second is racist. Nobody has a right to go into a public form and make blanket, false generalizations about broad groups of people without being called on it. Even if we restrict our discussion to ISIL-sponsored terrorism, not all of them are brown people, and most of the Paris shooters were Europeans not Syrians.
And if you think statistics are meaningless for decision making, I welcome you to sell all your belongings and invest all your money in lottery tickets. When you hit the jackpot, all those statistics saying the lottery is a bad investment won't mean anything, after all. Statistics aren't meaningless; racist generalizations are meaningless.
And I'm confused. First I was anti-Muslim. Then I'm racist against brown people. But then not all Muslims are brown and not all brown people are Muslim, so who am I prejudiced against again? Is it all Muslims including the ones that happen to be brown? Or all brown people including those that happen to be Muslim?
- 215
There's no problem with my logic, but nice attempt to distract from the main issue. You attempted to claim that white Christians are as bad, or even worse, than Muslims when it comes to the way they treat gays. This is categorically false. Homosexual relations are illegal in most Muslim countries and the penalty for them quite often is capital punishment. This is not the practice in the US or Europe. Are there people who support that kind of thing here? Sure, but they're just isolated nut jobs.MarkHaversham wrote: This is exactly the problem with your logic. When a white Christian does something it's an "isolated nut job", but when a black guy or a Muslim does something it's a violent broken culture or whatever.
- 1,868
I agree that you're confused. I'm not the one arguing against Syrian immigration, despite not all Syrians being Muslim or brown, and despite the terrorists in Paris mostly not being Syrians.shimmy wrote: And I'm confused. First I was anti-Muslim. Then I'm racist against brown people. But then not all Muslims are brown and not all brown people are Muslim, so who am I prejudiced against again? Is it all Muslims including the ones that happen to be brown? Or all brown people including those that happen to be Muslim?
Would you agree that white Christians became isolated nut jobs when homosexuality was legalized in America, and not a moment before? If a white Christian commits a hate crime in a city with anti-Sodomy laws on the books, are they still isolated nut jobs? Many if not most Muslims live in countries where homosexuality is legal, and many Christians live in countries where it is illegal. Heck, if you're transgendered you're probably better off in some of the biggest Muslim countries than in America, in terms of legal protection.Anglophile wrote:There's no problem with my logic, but nice attempt to distract from the main issue. You attempted to claim that white Christians are as bad, or even worse, than Muslims when it comes to the way they treat gays. This is categorically false. Homosexual relations are illegal in most Muslim countries and the penalty for them quite often is capital punishment. This is not the practice in the US or Europe. Are there people who support that kind of thing here? Sure, but they're just isolated nut jobs.MarkHaversham wrote: This is exactly the problem with your logic. When a white Christian does something it's an "isolated nut job", but when a black guy or a Muslim does something it's a violent broken culture or whatever.
You're attempting to describe "Muslims" as some uniform homogeneous group, while "Christians" are by contrast a diverse array of persons. That's simply not true, it's an illusion created by your ignorance of Muslims.
Mark, do you consider Isis an enemy or freedom fighters?
Do you think they are bad and a possible threat to the US and I'll include Muslims in Muslim countries so you might answer yes.
Do you agree that most members of ISIS are Islamic extremists? (yes, the vast majority of Muslims are good people, who are also targets of ISIS, obviously)
Are you willing to start accepting terrorist attacks the way we now unfortunately have to deal with car deaths, mass shootings, etc? Terrorists attacks are acceptable to you? Perhaps not acceptable, but just will be a random occurrence that we'll have to eventually put up with?
What is the greatest threat to the US TODAY? a. Nazi Germany b. white Christians c. Isis/islamic terrorists
More tolerant of homosexuality, average: a. Christian b. Muslim
More tolerant of homosexuality: a. western countries b. Muslim countries
More tolerant of women's rights: a. western countries b. Muslim
Do you think they are bad and a possible threat to the US and I'll include Muslims in Muslim countries so you might answer yes.
Do you agree that most members of ISIS are Islamic extremists? (yes, the vast majority of Muslims are good people, who are also targets of ISIS, obviously)
Are you willing to start accepting terrorist attacks the way we now unfortunately have to deal with car deaths, mass shootings, etc? Terrorists attacks are acceptable to you? Perhaps not acceptable, but just will be a random occurrence that we'll have to eventually put up with?
What is the greatest threat to the US TODAY? a. Nazi Germany b. white Christians c. Isis/islamic terrorists
More tolerant of homosexuality, average: a. Christian b. Muslim
More tolerant of homosexuality: a. western countries b. Muslim countries
More tolerant of women's rights: a. western countries b. Muslim
- 8,155
re-upping this comment:
dbInSouthCity wrote:this thread
I cringe every time I read 'Islamic Extremists'
or 'Islamic State'
These are restless at-risk youth that have been recruited/brain-washed by a gang with promises of power, money, validation etc.
The fact that they do this under the facade of Islam does not make them Islamic or Muslim. Rather than lumping them in with all Muslims or all Syrians or whatever, I'd rather just call them a$$holes and work in a global coalition to fry them off the face of the earth.
And before we get all high and mighty about the greatest threat to the US etc, please be reminded that these career freedom fighters were groomed, armed and enabled by the US when it served the purpose of the cold war. The proverbial chickens keep coming home to roost.
Rant over. Maybe we should just stick to Urban issues.
or 'Islamic State'
These are restless at-risk youth that have been recruited/brain-washed by a gang with promises of power, money, validation etc.
The fact that they do this under the facade of Islam does not make them Islamic or Muslim. Rather than lumping them in with all Muslims or all Syrians or whatever, I'd rather just call them a$$holes and work in a global coalition to fry them off the face of the earth.
And before we get all high and mighty about the greatest threat to the US etc, please be reminded that these career freedom fighters were groomed, armed and enabled by the US when it served the purpose of the cold war. The proverbial chickens keep coming home to roost.
Rant over. Maybe we should just stick to Urban issues.
- 8,155
^ yeah, the thread started out about how we can help our city grow through immigration -- solidly an urban related issue -- but has certainly been derailed.. not sure how to get things back on track, but maybe a mod can start a new Social issues category so someone can start a thread Who Hates Gays the Most if they want to.
Presbyterian wrote:
If a terrorist wants to enter the US, there are much faster and safer means to do so than our refugee resettlement program.
Such a simple, logical observation that it bears repeating. Thanks, Presby.