Reply With Quote
The biggest islamophobes are people that outright hate it, and most members of other religions. A non-religious person basically can not like islam, but put it in rational terms. Rationally, there's no place for hate.
It's a point that m-pulp just conceded. Nothing gross about it; it's hardcore reality.
I get that as immigrant yourself, you must be hyper sensitive to people ting on immigration, though.
The biggest islamophobes are people that outright hate it, and most members of other religions. A non-religious person basically can not like islam, but put it in rational terms. Rationally, there's no place for hate.
I get that you desperately think throwing around the h-word (and the i-word, nother buzz word) is some sort of trump card for you. It's pretty lazy; maybe, it's your way of saying you need a break.
Hmm, no, I actually said many times I dislike illegal immigration. Plus, who am I has no bearing in your gross generalization, or this discussion.
So how you reconcile the previous quote with the fact that the vast majority of muslims being non-violent, or in your own words:
I could make an argument that there are more good muslims than bad muslims.
Don't be reactionary, take your time to think about the response.
Europeans have different and sometimes very loose definitions of violent crimes. As it stands, Sweden's historical murder rate didn't e. And rapes can be difficult to prove (did you believe what's her name when she claimed conservative hero Brett Kavanaugh raped her?) I'm not suggesting African Muslim immigrants haven't increased the crime rate by some level, that happens any time there's an influx of poor immigrants, I'm saying it's not some in' doomsday scenario that is a historical aberration per Swedish crime history.
Now, if you want to debate whether or not the importation of immigrants of any religion from any country is worth the trade-off of increased crime, we can have that. I'm on the pro-side here, because it would hypocritical vis a vis our history to ban immigration when so many of us benefitted being born in the US because our ancestors, regardless of the perceived blight they brought into the country, were allowed in. Boil it down. A descendent of Irish or Italian immigrants is throwing boulders at glass houses if he's against immigration.
You can keep dodging the conversation, and try to make it personal. I won't let you, this is not about me.
There's nothing to dodge. You're free to be desperate and lazy.
And you should embrace islamophobia if that's how you feel about it. Frosty, for example, has no trouble admitting to being an outright racist.
At the end of the day, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
So which is it?
Willfully bringing in criminal elements into a country is counter intuitive.
or
I could make an argument that there are more good muslims than bad muslims.
Yes, stats can be flat out wrong or manipulated. I'm pretty much the one who introduced this narrative when I called out your leading BS stat. That's why the eye test is not obsolete. I've been around; I know what's what.
You even concede Muslims are bringing crime. Yet you (or others) think I'm a "hater" or whatever label you want to put because I'm literally arguing for safety for a nation.
BK was exposed as a bit of boob; but liberals were once again exposed for the heroism that they attach to character assassins and their ins utional power play was exposed. But that seems like a convo for another time and place.
Nothing honestly makes my blood boil more in the immigration debate when a likely descendent of immigrant who fled some hole situation in Europe takes up a hard anti-immigration position, oblivious to the fact that if people like him ran immigration policy in the days when Great-Grandpappy and Great-Granny O'Fallon sailed the seas on the way to the New World, they would've been told to "go back" and left to die by potato famine or being put up against the wall by some dictator.
but it's diffffffferrrrrrrrrent now!!!!!
Not really. Well, maybe different in the fact that the modern immigrants from Latin countries are considerably less violent than 20th century immigrants.
No. Countries have the full right to regulate immigration. That's the way of the world; you get in at the right time or you don't. Nobody ever said life is perfectly fair.
At the end of the day, I know you want a label to comfort yourself with. And when I don't give you one, you make one up like a desperate and lazy person would do.
Not mutually exclusive.
Murder is the hardest crime stat to manipulate, which is why it's cited more often that others. No, you're a "hater" because you're singling out a group because of their religious beliefs. If you want to be against immigration in general, no matter the race, creed, or country, you're intellectual position would be a lot more valid. I probably wouldn't even argue with you, since your position of, "Well, I just don't think the marginal uptick in crime is worth the charity effort." Fair enough. I'm of the opposite position, because I think it's arbitrary to be for immigration "back then," and against it now. If you're Irish or Italian descent, would you go back in time and tell your ancestors to "go back?"
You should learn history better, then your blood won't boil. Immigrants coming here often had it harder in many respects. They weren't playing the lotto. If we're talking 16th and 17th century, we're talking about people who faced even more mortality via Indian attack and the perils of wilderness survival. And even when they were established, they still had to battle their colonial overlords and pay a price of blood. None of this was done because it was meriting future persons from far-off lands an outright right to America. That's just silly. Your mindset is ridiculous.Nothing honestly makes my blood boil more in the immigration debate when a likely descendent of immigrant who fled some hole situation in Europe takes up a hard anti-immigration position, oblivious to the fact that if people like him ran immigration policy in the days when Great-Grandpappy and Great-Granny O'Fallon sailed the seas on the way to the New World, they would've been told to "go back" and left to die by potato famine or being put up against the wall by some dictator.
Not really. Well, maybe different in the fact that the modern immigrants from Latin countries are considerably less violent than 20th century immigrants.
It's still a hypocritical position. "It was okay for MY ancestors, but no one else now. We got ours. erryone!" You're en led to your hypocrisy, but I don't see it as coherent foundation to build an argument on.
Were my ancestors doing it for their posterity or for someone else's posterity? There's nothing hypocritical about it.
Yes, yes. Them people were just better back then! (btw, why the are you bringing up Colonial times? I'm talking about immigration after the US was a sovereign country). Did you even read the Nat Geo article I posted? In 1907 alone, we admitted over a million immigrants who were processed in minutes. This massive influx correlated with a e in murder rates. So yeah, it was "meriting others carte blanche" as those immigrants barely had to prove themselves as "worthy" to gain entry.
Okay, a sovereign country decided to take whatever number of immigrants. None of that means they have to take immigrants indefinitely. But this seems like a moot argument given that US leads the world in the number of immigrants (even before the BS illegal immigration on the southern border).
And the migrant farm worker isn't doing it for his posterity in the exact same way your ancestors escaped a potato famine to ensure their posterity? And you're assuming motive of immigrants to justify your hypocrisy. "My people were different, I tell you!" You tell me to "learn history," take that in advice yourself and read about the angry backlash Irish and Italian immigrants received from nativist assholes of the time. It's too often erroneously perceived that these immigrants walked off their boats, assimilated in a manner of weeks, and were welcomed with open arms by the population at large. They were vilified much the same way the current wave of Latino immigrants are, as criminals, rapists, degenerates, etc.
I don't want to put labels, I'm encouraging you to think before you post. When you post this (direct quote from a couple posts back):
What I have effectively argued though is that Islam is cancer
then what do you think people are going to think? That you love Islam? That there's room for debate there?
How is it not mutually exclusive? Argue your own point instead of trying to make this personal againNot mutually exclusive.
This is a much more coherent opinion, and yes, there will come a time when logistics will conflict with the math, i.e. a homeless shelter that only has room for 100 occupants can't accept 1000, no matter how much they want to. That's a more nuanced debate and I have no idea how large the population in the US needs to be until we're logistically strained.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions