Da Boss wrote:
I'm sorry, the Mayor of Cologne is now the representative of opinion for all of Germany? All hail the new dictator?

Can I pick an american who represents the views of all americans then? Is that how this works?

I mean your statement is directly contradicted by the Justice Minister at the end of the quoted section. One idiot saying something dumb does not tar an entire country, and if it does, the US is screwed.

Are you saying victim blaming isn't happening? Is it only the Mayor who's doing it? Oh, and I included the comment of the Justice Minister because I found it ironic that he would blame the perps when politicians and police in Germany were actively trying to obfuscate the identity of those same perps out of political correctness.

 Wulfmar wrote:
I don't believe the problem has anything to do with race, or think that racism is applicable as a term for the resentment as it's not a race causing the trouble.

The issue is Islam.

There. I said it.

Islam and the barbarism is brings to any place it rules over

Specifically, the inherent sexism and misogyny in Islamic culture.

So it was Islam that was responsible for the very similar NYC wilding attacks that have been mentioned twice in the thread so far?

No.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I'm having a pretty hard time accepting that anything written, however unpleasant, on right wing sites and chatrooms can be 'at least as awful' as (and by inference very possibly worse than) women being physically assaulted and actually raped in the street.

Last year we had some very prominent ideologues going before the United Nations to talk about how cyber violence was equally as damaging as real, physical violence.

These comments are that ideology in action.

Wait, it was proven what group was part of the attacks?

Islam isn't responsible for every event. Picking a single event to make a point isn't a valid argument. Islamic teachings and culture are behind a lot of the problems in the middle East and Africa.

Allowing the rape of non-Muslim women (culture) who have been captured in war and are termed right hand property (teachings)

Videos (I won't link as they're vile) of preachers commanding men to rape western women to 'out breed' the white man...

I mean, this stuff just goes on and I'm only looking at one aspect.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Clearly Cologne needs a slut walk, in full view of said migrants.

Don't like it? Welcome to Europe.

in light of events, its best if they are escorted by guards with machine guns.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So it was Islam that was responsible for the very similar NYC wilding attacks that have been mentioned twice in the thread so far?

No.

What does that have to do with Cologne?

Thats a non sequitur.

 Wulfmar wrote:
I don't believe the problem has anything to do with race, or think that racism is applicable as a term for the resentment as it's not a race causing the trouble.

The issue is Islam.

There. I said it.

Islam and the barbarism is brings to any place it rules over

That is not true. There are plenty of places that are pretty neat and have Islam as a majority religion. Tatarstan, Turkey, Malaysia etc.
The issue is not Islam in itself, it is a combination of cultural and economical factors.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
I don't believe the problem has anything to do with race, or think that racism is applicable as a term for the resentment as it's not a race causing the trouble.

The issue is Islam.

There. I said it.

Islam and the barbarism is brings to any place it rules over

That is not true. There are plenty of places that are pretty neat and have Islam as a majority religion. Tatarstan, Turkey, Malaysia etc.
The issue is not Islam in itself, it is a combination of cultural and economical factors.

Some of those factors are inherently Islamic.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So it was Islam that was responsible for the very similar NYC wilding attacks that have been mentioned twice in the thread so far?

No.

What does that have to do with Cologne?

The fact that muslims do not have the monopoly on sexual violence, which means that it is entirely possible that Islam as a religion had absolutely nothing to do with the rapes and it was rather the acts of savage men, regardless of their religion.

Every day a christian will rape someone, somewhere. They may do it in a large group. Does that mean that christianity is to blame for that rape?
Every day an atheist will rape someone, somewhere. They may also do it in a large group. Does that mean that atheism is to blame for that rape?
Every day a hindu will rape someone, somewhere. They may do it in a large group, too. Does that mean that hinduism is to blame for that rape?

The only thing that is to blame for this is the people who engaged in sexual violence.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So it was Islam that was responsible for the very similar NYC wilding attacks that have been mentioned twice in the thread so far?

No.

What does that have to do with Cologne?

The fact that muslims do not have the monopoly on sexual violence, which means that it is entirely possible that Islam as a religion had absolutely nothing to do with the rapes and it was rather the acts of savage men, regardless of their religion.

Nobody here said that it did. Only that it was a factor which influenced the perpetrators behavior.

Every day a christian will rape someone, somewhere. They may do it in a large group. Does that mean that christianity is to blame for that rape?

If they're influenced and motivated by Christian religious beliefs and doctrines, partially.

Every day an atheist will rape someone, somewhere. They may also do it in a large group. Does that mean that atheism is to blame for that rape?

Ditto.

Every day a hindu will rape someone, somewhere. They may do it in a large group, too. Does that mean that hinduism is to blame for that rape?

Ditto.

There are parts of the Quran that state a husband is permitted to beat his wife when she misbehaves. Ergo, when a Muslim man beats his wife because he believes its permitted by his religion, is that religion not partly to blame?

The only thing that is to blame for this is the people who engaged in sexual violence.

Really? And not the culture and religion they were brought in which helped shape their values and gave them the belief that its ok and permissable to do certain things? What about genital mutilation? Circumcision is a pretty core tenet of Jewish belief right? Its in the Torah? So does it not follow that Jewish religious belief and scripture are partly to blame for male circumcision?

>"My religious book permits me to do X"
>He does X.
>"There is absolutely no connection between the religious book permitting X and the individual committing X. Its all the individuals fault."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For decades, Christianity in Europe has been attacked for its stance(s) on homosexuality. The Bible contains strictures and beliefs that are distinctly homophobic, by modern standards.

But there is no connection between the homophobia in the Bible, and the homophobia of some individual Christians?

Skimmed the last few pages and didn't see this:

If its already been posted, I'll delete.

http://news.yahoo.com/unprecedented-sex-harassment-helsinki-police-194548532.html

Helsinki (AFP) - Finnish police reported Thursday an unusually high level of sexual harassment in Helsinki on New Year's Eve and said they had been tipped off about plans by groups of asylum seekers to sexually harass women.

Helsinki deputy police chief Ilkka Koskimaki told AFP: "There hasn't been this kind of harassment on previous New Year's Eves or other occasions for that matter... This is a completely new phenomenon in Helsinki."

Security guards hired to patrol the city on New Year's Eve told police there had been "widespread sexual harassment" at a central square where around 20,000 people had gathered for celebrations.

Three sexual assaults allegedly took place at Helsinki's central railway station on New Year's Eve, where around 1,000 mostly Iraqi asylum seekers had converged.

"Police have... received information about three cases of sexual assault, of which two have been filed as complaints," Helsinki police said in a statement.

"The suspects were asylum seekers. The three were caught and taken into custody on the spot," Koskimaki told AFP.

Police said they had increased their preparedness "to an exceptional level" in Helsinki for New Year's Eve after being tipped off about possible problems.

"Ahead of New Year's Eve, the police caught wind of information that asylum seekers in the capital region possibly had similar plans to what the men gathered in Cologne's railway station have been reported to have had," police said in a statement.

Dozens of apparently coordinated sexual assaults against women took place on New Year's Eve in the western German city of Cologne.

Cologne police said they had received 120 criminal complaints by Thursday and quoted witnesses as saying that groups of 20-30 young men "who appeared to be of Arab origin" had surrounded victims, assaulted them and in several cases robbed them.

Koskimaki said police did not see a link between the Cologne and Helsinki incidents.

Shortly before New Year's Eve, Finnish police also arrested six Iraqis at an asylum residency centre in Kirkkonummi, around 30 kilometres (19 miles) west of Helsinki, suspected of "publicly inciting criminal behaviour". They were released on January 2.

According to Koskimaki, the arrests were linked to the information police received in the run-up to New Year's Eve.

In November, Finnish authorities said around 10 asylum seekers were suspected of rapes, among the more than 1,000 rapes reported to police in 2015.

Im still confused, is it an actual minority group responsible or are people just theorizing

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im still confused, is it an actual minority group responsible or are people just theorizing

I believe that all that is known is that men of Arab or North African origins were responsible. It is sure that it was a minority group, what is not sure is whether they were refugees or "regular" asylum seekers.

Sex attackers risk deportation - Merkel

Germany must look again at deporting foreigners convicted of crimes
following the Cologne sex attacks, Chancellor Angela Merkel says.

She said "clear signals" had to be sent to those not prepared to abide by German law.

Gangs of men described as of North African and Arab appearance were reported to be behind the attacks.

Meanwhile, similar incidents from New Year's Eve have been reported in Finland and Switzerland.

"What happened on New Year is not acceptable," Mrs Merkel said in a statement.

"These are repugnant criminal acts that a state, that Germany will not accept.
The feeling women had in this case of being at people's mercy, without any protection, is intolerable for me personally as well.

"That's why it is important that everything that happened there will be brought to the table.
We must examine again and again whether we have already done what is necessary in terms of deportations from Germany,
in order to send clear signals to those who are not prepared to abide by our legal order."


The identification of the attackers as North African or Arab in appearance has caused alarm in Germany because of the influx of more than a million migrants and refugees in the past year.

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas also said deportations "would certainly be conceivable" for any foreigners involved in the attacks.

He told the Funke newspaper group that German law allowed people to be deported during asylum proceedings if they were sentenced to a year or more in prison.


Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35259224

It appears that Angela Merkel is ready to take action.

About time if you ask me.

Sex attackers "risk" deportation?

Must look again, she says. Poppycock. They'll make a big fuss to generate headlines then quietly drop it like a hot potato once the news agenda has moved on. European human rights will be a big obstacle to deportotaion.

Shell "look again" and think "nope".

 Breotan wrote:
Sex attackers "risk" deportation?

It sounds like they get prison first, then deportation. ...right?

 Witzkatz wrote:
A friend of mine just posted an article on facebook where the author was roughly referring to this incident, but also explained that Western media oversexualizes women so that all the young men from middle eastern countries are, naturally, thinking that all Western girls are easy and like a rather aggressive approach. It's another weird...discussion point I have not heard before.

Once when I was out shopping a middle eastern-looking guy started hitting on me out of nowhere. I don't know if he thought "hey, easy white girl" or if he was just not great at social customs yet - if that's the case hopefully he learned a little bit from the encounter? That was just one guy, though. If you want to write them off over one guy the we'll just have to ship all men back to Africa.

I dunno. I've read things by women from that area saying that men look at you differently there than in The West. It probably doesn't help when someone is told it's a woman's responsibility to not tempt them, but again that seems cultural as much as anything. I think reality is that Muslims are just like Christians - their holy book says some awful stuff but when it conflicts with the morality they've learned from their culture, they just tune it out. There are lots of Muslims who are happy citizens of western countries. It might be tough to adjust, but then, when your country has gone up in flames maybe it's easier than you might think to adopt something new.

Re: the reporting thing. Whenever something like this happens, a bunch of anti-Islam or anti-refugee sentiment gets whipped up and certain groups (nationalists in particular) often get violent. Then they do things like firebomb Sikh temples or mosques, or accost and scream at or assault people who they think look Muslim or like a refugee. Don't say "free speech is so important and powerful" out one side of your mouth and "...but it can't possibly hurt anyone" out the other. It does, and reporting this stuff has to be responsible. It does have the capacity to cause more harm than the original actions.

I mean, at the very least you could end up like Australia, where over a decade of politicians vilifying refugees for political gain has led to us committing crimes against humanity in the hopes that we'll convince refugees that coming here is worse than getting killed by the Taliban.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So it was Islam that was responsible for the very similar NYC wilding attacks that have been mentioned twice in the thread so far?

No.

What does that have to do with Cologne?

Thats a non sequitur.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
I don't believe the problem has anything to do with race, or think that racism is applicable as a term for the resentment as it's not a race causing the trouble.

The issue is Islam.

There. I said it.

Islam and the barbarism is brings to any place it rules over

Specifically, the inherent sexism and misogyny in Islamic culture.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So it was Islam that was responsible for the very similar NYC wilding attacks that have been mentioned twice in the thread so far?

No.

Identical "wilding" attacks in New York and Cologne, not carried out by Muslims in both cases.

Islam was not the common factor.

It follows, therefore, that Islam is not the problem.

I just saw an article posted on FB that elaborates on the drunkard's fest that is the Oktoberfest, perhaps in comparison to this. During the Oktoberfest, there are also heightened reports of sexual harassment, violence, even rape. There seem to be certain people who specialize on finding girls and women isolated from their friend groups and "offer to bring them home".

Some people argue that these women and girls "knew how the Oktoberfest is" and that "things are of course different" during such an occasion. Others argue, rightfully I think, that there is still no excuse for violence, sexual harassment and rape, though, on the Oktoberfest.

However, it IS interesting that I never heard of mass outcries about "regular tourists" and German natives being violent, sexually aggressive drunkards on the Wies'n.

My personal opinion about Cologne and Oktoberfest and all these instances has changed a bit in the last days...the common factor is not always religion or ethnicities, but rather alcohol. If it wouldn't be so ingrained in culture, there might be a way to solve some problems on that front...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
I don't believe the problem has anything to do with race, or think that racism is applicable as a term for the resentment as it's not a race causing the trouble.

The issue is Islam.

There. I said it.

Islam and the barbarism is brings to any place it rules over

That is not true. There are plenty of places that are pretty neat and have Islam as a majority religion. Tatarstan, Turkey, Malaysia etc.
The issue is not Islam in itself, it is a combination of cultural and economical factors.

Some of those factors are inherently Islamic.

If they were inherently islamic, that would mean they should appear in every islamic culture. Since they don't, I am going to go with that it is something to do with Arab culture, rather than something in Islam. There is plenty of muslims, even in muslim-majority countries like Bosnia, who share Western values on things like women's rights. Therefore, sexism and misogyny are not inherent to islamic culture.

The last time I posted in one of these threads, Kilkrazy banned me from Off-Topic for a week. Let's roll.

By the way, guys, it wasn't just Cologne:
Hamburg, Helsinki, Zurich, Salzburg, Kalmar.

The factor linking all these together is the same factor that linked everything in Cologne together, by the way.

Helsinki would've been much worse but a group of migrants were arrested earlier in the week and the police found out about plans to do this.

Icing on the cake is the gang rape of two teenaged (14, 15) girls in Weil am Rhine.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So it was Islam that was responsible for the very similar NYC wilding attacks that have been mentioned twice in the thread so far?

No.

Look up. Look back at your post. Look up again.

Ask yourself, "Am I avoiding cognitive dissonance? Do I hold my opinions for emotional reasons? Is there logic that I am avoiding to stop myself from being bad?"

Let me tell you a story about racism, Kilkrazy. You might like this one. Back in the '80s in London, there was a series of HORRIFIC robbery-rapes. A guy would break into a house, rape ANYONE who was inside and then rob the place and leave. Old men, old women, children, whatever. This guy didn't care. These crimes were awful.

Then there were blockades by police in the poor neighbourhoods in London. They'd stop only black men, swab their mouths and tell them to get on their way. This caused RIOTS. The police were accused of being racist, of being monsters, of targeting black men for no reason except to ruin their day.

The police DID have nothing to go on... except barely understood DNA testing. Earlier, they sent it in the DNA they had got from one of the victims. The lab had sent it back saying, "There is a 99% chance this was a black male as all the genetic markers are there."

The police caught the guy who was doing the crimes and they stopped.

Think about it.

Pretty relevant on the distinction between the two cultures views on what you can and cannot do around woman. Norway for example offer courses for people in dealing with western women because they do come from places and cultures where they don't treat women the same way we do in the western world. To pretend otherwise that no migrants are committing large scale sexual assaults and or see nothing wrong with assaulting western women who are seen sometimes as prostitutes because of their none conservative ways is just flat out denial. You're not racist for seeing reality in things even some migrants from those places say its that way.

When he first arrived in Europe, Abdu Osman Kelifa, a Muslim asylum seeker from the Horn of Africa, was shocked to see women in skimpy clothes drinking alcohol and kissing in public. Back home, he said, only prostitutes do that, and in locally made movies couples “only hug but never kiss.”

Confused, Mr. Kelifa volunteered to take part in a pioneering and, in some quarters, controversial program that seeks to prevent sexual and other violence by helping male immigrants from societies that are largely segregated or in which women show neither flesh nor public affection to adapt to more open European societies.

Fearful of stigmatizing migrants as potential rapists and playing into the hands of anti-immigrant politicians, most European countries have avoided addressing the question of whether men arriving from more conservative societies might get the wrong idea once they move to places where it can seem as if anything goes.

This kind of attitude is whats holding people back, admitting that peoples from certain societies and cultures do view women differently and pose possible danger to more western women who do not uphold cultural conservative attitudes similar to the migrants own is not racist, its not its admitting difference in cultural norms especially in large groups of young men. all that racism card throwing and its not them its us and whatever other flat out denial/victim blaming tactics been thrown around is stopping people fixing the real issue.

Hanne Kristin Rohde, a former head of the violent crime section of the Oslo Police Department, said she ran into a wall of hostility when, in 2011 while still in the police force, she blamed sexual violence by foreign men on cultural factors and went public with data suggesting that immigrants committed a hugely disproportionate number of rapes.

“The biggest danger for everyone is silence,” said Per Isdal, a clinical psychologist in Stavanger who works with the foundation, which developed the program Mr. Kelifa attended in Sandes.

Many refugees “come from cultures that are not gender equal and where women are the property of men,” Mr. Isdal said. “We have to help them adapt to their new culture.”

“This was a big problem but it was difficult to talk about it,” Ms. Rohde said recently, asserting that there was “a clear statistical connection” between sexual violence and male migrants from countries where “women have no value of their own.” The taboo, she added, has since eased somewhat.

“There are lots of men who haven’t learned that women have value,” said Ms. Rohde, who wants mandatory sexual conduct classes for all new male migrants. “This is the biggest problem, and it is a cultural problem.”

An air of silence has blanketed this real issue silencing anyone from addressing it on flawed accusations of "RACIST!"

Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of sexual assault. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.

“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.

Let me stress it is not intolerance or simple racism to look at these factors and see the connections with reality taking place. If that were true and we basically have to deny anything happening if it involves migrants well we should start letting people convicted of crimes like murder and rape go if they happen to be from none European countries to appear not racist. It is racist to deny crime and reality based on culture, race or country of origin over facts and two of those still have nothing to do with race.

If a women tells you she was raped and you're sympathetic until you hear it was by an recent immigrant where upon you turn on the victim and tell them its their fault or to give those men leeway because they're different or maybe she should learn to avoid rape herself that its somehow now her fault, that makes you a really bad person for doing so.

As a side note on religion, Christianity has been criticized for years on things like homosexuality and Christian businesses have been forced to go against their beliefs to carry on serving and churches were made to accept changes that don't match up to modern progressive society. so why is Islam off the table for the same thing. Why is it untouchable in the west, why do we make excuses for it when it clashes with western ideology, why do we bend over backwards to accommodate even if its directly opposed to western ways yet any other religion is open to criticism and downright changes/rules and restrictions placed on them.



Its sad because there's a lot of interesting things in the culture too.



References
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/world/europe/norway-offers-migrants-a-lesson-in-how-to-treat-women.html?_r=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So it was Islam that was responsible for the very similar NYC wilding attacks that have been mentioned twice in the thread so far?

No.

What does that have to do with Cologne?

Thats a non sequitur.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
I don't believe the problem has anything to do with race, or think that racism is applicable as a term for the resentment as it's not a race causing the trouble.

The issue is Islam.

There. I said it.

Islam and the barbarism is brings to any place it rules over

Specifically, the inherent sexism and misogyny in Islamic culture.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So it was Islam that was responsible for the very similar NYC wilding attacks that have been mentioned twice in the thread so far?

No.

Identical "wilding" attacks in New York and Cologne, not carried out by Muslims in both cases.

Islam was not the common factor.

It follows, therefore, that Islam is not the problem.

Right. Because there can only ever be one single possible cause or contributing factor to sexusl violence. If Islam is not the cause/a factor in every single case of sexual violence everywhere in the world, then its never involved in anything.



Nobody here has argued that Islam is always the problem, responsible for all cases of exual violence everywhere. They're arguing that its the problem, and a significant factor in this particular incident.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

As a side note on religion, Christianity has been criticized for years on things like homosexuality and Christian businesses have been forced to go against their beliefs to carry on serving and churches were made to accept changes that don't match up to modern progressive society. so why is Islam off the table for the same thing. Why is it untouchable in the west, why do we make excuses for it when it clashes with western ideology, why do we bend over backwards to accommodate even if its directly opposed to western ways yet any other religion is open to criticism and downright changes/rules and restrictions placed on them.

Because the average Muslim has brown skin, and some people care morr about racism than protecting victims of sexual violence.


I've been scornful of such proposals in the past, but this is an example of men who need to be literally taught not to rape to counteract the negative cultural influences of their country of origin.

On my phone, so no long rant, but treating "Arab" culture or "Islamic" culture as if it's a homogenous blob is actually racist*, since it attributes certain values to people based solely on their geographical origin.

*Note that there's a difference between an argument being racist and the person making it being racist. It's quite possible to make racist arguments without being a racist (hell, I'm guilty of it myself), but that does not change that the argument is rubbish.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
treating "Arab" culture or "Islamic" culture as if it's a homogenous blob is actually racist

All those things have nothing to do with race you can be a follower of Islam and be white. You can follow Islamic culture and be Asian.
People need to learn what race is so they don't pull the racism card for a religion. It would be like me saying "All Christians are bigots" and someone calling racism on it, its silly it makes no sense, its also not factual.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
treating "Arab" culture or "Islamic" culture as if it's a homogenous blob is actually racist

All those things have nothing to do with race you can be a follower of Islam and be white. You can follow Islamic culture and be Asian.
People need to learn what race is so they don't pull the racism card for a religion. It would be like me saying "All Christians are bigots" and someone calling racism on it, its silly it makes no sense, its also not factual.

Or you could take five minutes to read up on cultural racism.

But you haven't actually shown that the argument itself is rubbish, you just used the Race card and lazily labelled it racist as though that is in itself a sufficient rebuttal. I'm still waiting for the punch line.

Of course Islam is not a homogeneous monolith, no religion is. If people sound like they're describing it as such, its usually a generalisation for ease of argument. When people criticise Christianity on homosexuality, do they account for each and every sect of Christianity?

But there are specific aspects of and teachings in Islam that are deeply misogynistic by western standards which influence the behaviour of men brought up in Islamic cultures.

Are you outright denying that there's a link between Islamic teachings and cultural values and the behaviour and attitudes of zmuslim men?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
treating "Arab" culture or "Islamic" culture as if it's a homogenous blob is actually racist

All those things have nothing to do with race you can be a follower of Islam and be white. You can follow Islamic culture and be Asian.
People need to learn what race is so they don't pull the racism card for a religion. It would be like me saying "All Christians are bigots" and someone calling racism on it, its silly it makes no sense, its also not factual.

Or you could take five minutes to read up on cultural racism.

A.k.a. redefining words and inventing new isms to back up a flawed argument. Like hammering a square block into a rounded shape to let it fit into s round ho!e.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or you could take five minutes to read up on cultural racism.

Questioning certain true aspects of a religion that is incompatible with the western world is not racism or cultural racism or any new term coined to deflect rational and real arguments that need addressing. Otherwise I could claim again that America and Europe are cultural racist for pressuring Christian churches to wed homosexual couples. so why is the teachings of Islam off limits but other religions fair game? if a large percentage of people belonging to a certain religion support stoning, is it racist to question it? sorry culturally racist to question it? especially if they want to bring that practice to the western world as well?

Whose lumping a whole society of people together and been racist towards them? nobody here from what Ive seen. what you're doing is lumping questioning a religions ideology or practices with been racist to a people. not quite the same thing im afraid. I could say for example "I find the bibles views on killing none believers or whatever highly questionable and deplorable" then you would come in and say "anyone who says this is lumping everyone together and its racist" questioning a religions book, ideology or practices taken no matter how small or large scale is NOT been racist towards a whole people. Its questioning something they have or follow, not the people themselves. You can't be racist or even "culturally racist" to an ideology, only a people. You are free to question ideologies and religion all you want, its your human right to do so.

Again feel free to say question the bible or Christan practices I certainly wouldn't call you a cultural racist for doing so because it would be stupid.

Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

And I didn't just blanket call the argument racist, I explained why: the assumption that all Arab culture is a homogenous blob IS racist, because it attributes traits, ideas and values to people not based on who they are, but where they are from. It's the same thing Nuggz accused me of doing earlier in the thread, and he wasn't entirely wrong.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

The term "culture racism" was first used in the beginning of the 1980s.

It is and is most popular mainly in Sweden only. Deal with it please.

Here is a small article: No one is asking the women in Cologne what they feel

In it, a few women have brief quotes about the event. Here are some of them:

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Tanja says she had several friends who were at the central station while the attacks took place. "Even they told me that they don't want the debate to become a refugee topic again. This is yet again to talk over our heads, to ignore our reality."

"People are insisting on making this a political story, trying to shift the focus on pro- or anti-refugees. But in fact, no one is listening to what we have to say - the women who have been suffering from this violence in the streets on a daily basis long before refugees even came here," she says.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I explained why: the assumption that all Arab culture is a homogenous blob IS racist, because it attributes traits, ideas and values to people not based on who they are, but where they are from.

So you're now saying that a culture based in any location doesn't have its own culture? that you can't say that Arab nations follow an Arabic culture? what you said is really stupid, sorry it is.

So if I say that an Islamic countries peoples will have ideas and values of Islam and follow Islam, thats cultural racism to you? or saying that the people of Israel will mostly follow Jewish traditions is also racist because it generalised based on location and religion of said location..ok

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

And I didn't just blanket call the argument racist, I explained why: the assumption that all Arab culture is a homogenous blob IS racist, because it attributes traits, ideas and values to people not based on who they are, but where they are from. It's the same thing Nuggz accused me of doing earlier in the thread, and he wasn't entirely wrong.

It is a new term actually. And no I will not "deal with it", I reject it as absurd. The wikipedia article lists hatred and bigotry between rival baseball teams as an example of cultural racism.

A more accurate term would be cultural xenophobia. It is not racism Trying to link it to Racism is ad hominem.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

The term "culture racism" was first used in the beginning of the 1980s.

It is and is most popular mainly in Sweden only. Deal with it please.

30 years old is hardly a novel concept. Also, citation needed. Further, even if it is, so what? Are you honestly going to argue that the country of origin or usage of a certain idea decides that idea's merit? My irony meter might not withstand that.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Here is a small article: No one is asking the women in Cologne what they feel

In it, a few women have brief quotes about the event. Here are some of them:

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Tanja says she had several friends who were at the central station while the attacks took place. "Even they told me that they don't want the debate to become a refugee topic again. This is yet again to talk over our heads, to ignore our reality."

"People are insisting on making this a political story, trying to shift the focus on pro- or anti-refugees. But in fact, no one is listening to what we have to say - the women who have been suffering from this violence in the streets on a daily basis long before refugees even came here," she says.

*phew*

I was worried that this thread was never going to shift over to the "All men are evil rapists" angle. I can rest easy now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
30 years old is hardly a novel concept. Also, citation needed. Further, even if it is, so what? Are you honestly going to argue that the country of origin or usage of a certain idea decides that idea's merit? My irony meter might not withstand that.

In terms of English language defination 30 years is nothing to claim cultural racism is some real ingrained thing and its original land of been coined up is the UK, its just really popular now in Sweden because it lets people call other people racists and get around that whole questioning a religion isn't about race card and thats not me saying its a big thing mainly in Swedish circles thats what the definition of cultural racism told me when searched for online Its not even really accepted:

“Cultural racism” is not yet a standard label in the race and racism literature, especially in the United States. It is virtually absent in the anthropological literature

My irony meter isn't even needing using here just the fact that your argument against anyone elses debate on the religion is to call them new wave racists and be done with it. No counter points made or discussing anything brought up just you talk about a religion as a whole and not literally case by case you're a racist. Well excuse me for expecting a little more than that, because last I checked a human couldn't be racist to an idea, only actual people.

You shouldn't call people racist for questioning a religion anyway, you'd hate to have racist start to have positive connotations

"Hey guys that part about stoning been cool in your religion. I don't think we should accept that in the west ok. Now most stuff is cool but I also don't think we should practice the parts about killing homosexuals either, if you don't practice that its cool but we should all agree to disagree with those that preach its cool yeah?" < cultural racist.

If people agree with your cultural racists you're going to start seeing all those racists in positive lights now aren't you. Lets keep the terminology for racist for actual racists. Christianity went through a reformation no reason Islam can't its not racist to modernize some of its ideologies that are harmful and still practiced in certain places in the world.

This isn't racism either, men from those places admit there is a cultural clash and law/women issues with general immigrants/refugees that can be addressed/changed.

When he first arrived in Europe, Abdu Osman Kelifa, a Muslim asylum seeker from the Horn of Africa, was shocked to see women in skimpy clothes drinking alcohol and kissing in public. Back home, he said, only prostitutes do that, and in locally made movies couples “only hug but never kiss.”

Confused, Mr. Kelifa volunteered to take part in a pioneering and, in some quarters, controversial program that seeks to prevent sexual and other violence by helping male immigrants from societies that are largely segregated or in which women show neither flesh nor public affection to adapt to more open European societies.

^ Cultural racist hes generalizing a culture and people instead of saying that nobody ever all follow one type of thinking when its part of your culture but is up for change. Such a racist.

That mans words are the whole issue wrapped up in a bow and as you can see its got nothing to do with racism its everything to do with cultural differences and changes but look how many people make this about racism to counter simple cultural issues been addressed. "Racist!" is the counter and its not even needed people should be able to talk about this, even people from those cultures talk openly about it. What is a clear cut cultural clash issue has been made into a racial one thanks to overly PC individuals been unable to even look at other cultures without feeling guilty.

Deleted. I can't be bothered to argue this gak.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

And I didn't just blanket call the argument racist, I explained why: the assumption that all Arab culture is a homogenous blob IS racist, because it attributes traits, ideas and values to people not based on who they are, but where they are from. It's the same thing Nuggz accused me of doing earlier in the thread, and he wasn't entirely wrong.

Jesus, it's always the Swedes.

How does the assumption that Arab culture is homogenous (it both is and isn't, but that's more because there are various sects of Islam than anything else) make people assign traits, ideas and values based on race? That makes NO SENSE, man. NONE.

It's like saying that because I say I disagree with fruits that I assume vegetables are thieves. Your argument is nonsensical.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Here is a small article: No one is asking the women in Cologne what they feel

In it, a few women have brief quotes about the event. Here are some of them:

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Tanja says she had several friends who were at the central station while the attacks took place. "Even they told me that they don't want the debate to become a refugee topic again. This is yet again to talk over our heads, to ignore our reality."

"People are insisting on making this a political story, trying to shift the focus on pro- or anti-refugees. But in fact, no one is listening to what we have to say - the women who have been suffering from this violence in the streets on a daily basis long before refugees even came here," she says.

Are those quotes from victims or randoms on the street?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Here is a small article: No one is asking the women in Cologne what they feel

In it, a few women have brief quotes about the event. Here are some of them:

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Tanja says she had several friends who were at the central station while the attacks took place. "Even they told me that they don't want the debate to become a refugee topic again. This is yet again to talk over our heads, to ignore our reality."

"People are insisting on making this a political story, trying to shift the focus on pro- or anti-refugees. But in fact, no one is listening to what we have to say - the women who have been suffering from this violence in the streets on a daily basis long before refugees even came here," she says.

None of those quotes are from victims. I wonder if their opinions would change if they were targeted and victimized by a perp whose culture told him it was okay to do so.

Maybe not. But the quoted folks have no more valid opinion than the rest of us discussing it here. They are not privy to additional information.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Here is a small article: No one is asking the women in Cologne what they feel

In it, a few women have brief quotes about the event. Here are some of them:

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Tanja says she had several friends who were at the central station while the attacks took place. "Even they told me that they don't want the debate to become a refugee topic again. This is yet again to talk over our heads, to ignore our reality."

"People are insisting on making this a political story, trying to shift the focus on pro- or anti-refugees. But in fact, no one is listening to what we have to say - the women who have been suffering from this violence in the streets on a daily basis long before refugees even came here," she says.

Are those quotes from victims or randoms on the street?

No, from an activist of a feminist group.

None of those quotes are from victims. I wonder if their opinions would change if they were targeted and victimized by a perp whose culture told him it was okay to do so.

Maybe not. But the quoted folks have no more valid opinion than the rest of us discussing it here. They are not privy to additional information.

Thats the issue NOT religion. By the very nature of cultures, you have immigrants coming in with different cultural norms. Layer on that the vast majority of troublemakers are males, and that you and have an environment where large groups of males are cut loose from their underlying society (having emigrated to a completely different trouble) and you develop a problem that needs to be addressed.

And it can be done without being "racist." Classes and programs on what society is in the home country, and thorough policing. Also as noted, this is not just an immigrant issue, but a society issue in every society.

 CptJake wrote:

None of those quotes are from victims. I wonder if their opinions would change if they were targeted and victimized by a perp whose culture told him it was okay to do so.

Maybe not. But the quoted folks have no more valid opinion than the rest of us discussing it here. They are not privy to additional information.

not to mention the rich title "No one asks what the women think" when really they have just picked women who share the sites views on the subject. When clearly we have seen a lot of women in protests in recent days over what happened asking for talks on immigration and lack of assimilation, clearly not thinking the same as these random women they asked. Saying no one asked the women what they think and then not even asking any of the women present or attacked is really disingenuous and funny considering the quotes they cherrypicked talk of people using it to further their agenda and yet the entire piece if that.

"Because refugees are now a burning topic, the media all of a sudden report about these events, but what nobody wants to admit is that these things happen all the time. I'm sorry to break this to you, but German-born men also harass and rape."

Yes so that mean that it can never be a large group of foreign men from a different culture assaulting women then, because similar things happen...great argument. It doesn't even negate anything about this case.

One man described how his partner and 15-year-old daughter were surrounded by a crowd outside the station and he was unable to help. "The attackers grabbed her and my partner's breasts and groped them between their legs."

A British woman visiting Cologne said fireworks had been thrown at her group by men who spoke neither German nor English. "They were trying to hug us, kiss us. One man stole my friend's bag," she told the BBC.

"Another tried to get us into his 'private taxi'. I've been in scary and even life-threatening situations and I've never experienced anything like that."

Interesting that instead of just addressing this issue that this is because a large influx of young men from a different culture came to Germany and have not assimilated, that those picked quotes instead try to make it seem like its just always been this way and because German men also grope it means that it can never ever be down to a different cultural clash. Thats like saying because there was terrorists in the world that wasn't about religion that no suicide bombing could ever be about religion in any situation.

 Frazzled wrote:
you have immigrants coming in with different cultural norms. Layer on that the vast majority of troublemakers are males, and that you and have an environment where large groups of males are cut loose from their underlying society (having emigrated to a completely different trouble) and you develop a problem that needs to be addressed.

If Germany accepted this reality they could sort a lot of the problems faster but everyone's still dancing around the completely irrelevant topic of racism. They're dancing around something that doesn't even need mentioning.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
People need to learn what race is.

That's good advice.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
So they don't pull the racism card for a religion.

Ok, I think perhaps before you start an argument about semantics, you need take your own advice and look up the definition of race, and maybe read a little about the etymology, and then maybe read about equivocation.

In recent times the word "race" has been used mostly to talk about "ethnicity" because that's a big talking point these days, but words are often polysemic, for example It can also pertain to competitions: "an egg and spoon race". In the past it was used more often to talk about nationality "the French race". That might sound peculiar to you, but it's a legitimate usage of the word. In its broadest sense, a race is a group of people (or things) with a common feature. It could be their religion, politics, disability, ancestry, upbringing, traditions, age, occupation, or even gender. While people like to make up more specific "isms" for many of those (sexism, chauvinism, classism, ageism etc... not to mention racism in its contracted meaning), they can all be squarely covered by "racism".

 Smacks wrote:
In its broadest sense, a race is a group of people with a common feature. It could be their religion, politics, disability, ancestry, upbringing, traditions, age, occupation, or even gender.

and you'd be wrong. I'm sorry but sex isn't race, age isn't race, occupation isn't a race. you can say it but it won't make it true I can make up a term right now to fit any argument I want thanks to language but it wouldn't make my argument work. Anyone who questions or argues against my conclusions is a racist they're meist as in anyone who is against me is racist I am a race now anyone who shares my opinion belongs to my race. See its silly isn't it. I did try to find "age racism" and "sex racism" and even "occupation racism" because you know dock workers are a race too couldn't actually find anything though....

what you're doing and I go onto explain is called Equivocation.
A common word play fallacy.

Not to mention racism still has nothing to do with the cultural assimilation topic at hand people are just making it about racism to quell anyone saying anything they disagree with which brings me back to the point I just made.

 Smacks wrote:
(sexism, chauvinism, classism, ageism etc... not to mention racism in its contracted meaning), they can all be squarely covered by "racism".

Sexism is not racism! for Gods sake stop your argument is stupid really really stupid. You're just making up rules for words now. No matter what you say sexism will not be blanket covered by the term racism because they share ism at the end. Stop your false association tactic.

 Smacks wrote:
but words are often polysemic, for example It can also pertain to competitions: "an egg and spoon race".

You might have a point if you're saying racism can also mean a type of fruit. what your doing is trying to claim racism can mean any number of things and be racism but thats false. I could say gravity means racism but its meaning wouldn't be the same, same as "race" people and "race" competition are not the same because they share the same word, the meaning of the word is different you're claiming racism can mean anything and keep the same meaning. Please stop. If we're at the level where we can make up anything we want to mean anything we want to fit our argument then this is going to turn into a mush of an argument at child like levels of changing the rules so you can win and I will take no part in child like levels of debate.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
and you'd be wrong. I'm sorry but sex isn't race,

Except I'm not wrong. Here is the definition, straight from the dictionary: "a group or set of people or things with a common feature or features." and the example given is sex: "some male firefighters still regarded women as a race apart"

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
what your doing is trying to claim racism can mean any number of things and be racism but thats false.

You were the one who said discriminating against religion isn't racism. What I'm doing is pointing out that you are demonstrably wrong.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
I could say gravity means racism but its meaning wouldn't be the same, same as "race" people and "race" competition are not the same because they share the same word, the meaning of the word is different you're claiming racism can mean anything and keep the same meaning. Please stop. If we're at the level where we can make up anything we want to mean anything we want to fit our argument then this is going to turn into a mush of an argument at child like levels of changing the rules so you can win and I will take no part in child like levels of debate.

You say you will take no part in it, but you were the one who started it. You were the one who made up the rule that race only pertains to "ethnicity" to fit your argument, and you were wrong. Stop making gak up, and I'll stop correcting you.

I agree with you that people shouldn't just pull the racism card out of their ass to try and win arguments by appealing to outrage, but that's actually beside the point.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


A more accurate term would be cultural xenophobia. It is not racism Trying to link it to Racism is ad hominem.

It's only ad hominem if it's attacking a person, rather than the argument. You're going to have to try awfully hard to find anywhere in this thread where I've called anyone a racist. Regardless, I don't care what you call the concept, the point is that painting Arabs as a culturally homogenous group is disingenious, just as painting all Christians as one homogenous group is stupid, or all Irish, or all Peruvians, or all...

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
30 years old is hardly a novel concept. Also, citation needed. Further, even if it is, so what? Are you honestly going to argue that the country of origin or usage of a certain idea decides that idea's merit? My irony meter might not withstand that.

In terms of English language defination 30 years is nothing to claim cultural racism is some real ingrained thing and its original land of been coined up is the UK, its just really popular now in Sweden because it lets people call other people racists and get around that whole questioning a religion isn't about race card and thats not me saying its a big thing mainly in Swedish circles thats what the definition of cultural racism told me when searched for online Its not even really accepted:

“Cultural racism” is not yet a standard label in the race and racism literature, especially in the United States. It is virtually absent in the anthropological literature

My irony meter isn't even needing using here just the fact that your argument against anyone elses debate on the religion is to call them new wave racists and be done with it. No counter points made or discussing anything brought up just you talk about a religion as a whole and not literally case by case you're a racist. Well excuse me for expecting a little more than that, because last I checked a human couldn't be racist to an idea, only actual people.

Firstly, source on the quote? Secondly, I've been rather explicit with pointing out that I'm not calling any person racist, I'm calling arguments racist (or "culturally xenophobic" or whatever you want to call it). You're stereotyping both German and "Arab" culture.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

You shouldn't call people racist for questioning a religion anyway, you'd hate to have racist start to have positive connotations

Stop putting words in my mouth. I haven't called anyone racist in this thread so far.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:


"Hey guys that part about stoning been cool in your religion. I don't think we should accept that in the west ok. Now most stuff is cool but I also don't think we should practice the parts about killing homosexuals either, if you don't practice that its cool but we should all agree to disagree with those that preach its cool yeah?" < cultural racist.

I'm starting to think that you need to work on your reading comprehension. I argued against treating large groups of people as a homogenous culture, not against specific criticism. Assuming that all Arabs or Muslims are totally behind stoning people to death is cultural racism/cultural xenophobia/whatever, arguing against the practise is not.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:


This isn't racism either, men from those places admit there is a cultural clash and law/women issues with general immigrants/refugees that can be addressed/changed.

When he first arrived in Europe, Abdu Osman Kelifa, a Muslim asylum seeker from the Horn of Africa, was shocked to see women in skimpy clothes drinking alcohol and kissing in public. Back home, he said, only prostitutes do that, and in locally made movies couples “only hug but never kiss.”

Confused, Mr. Kelifa volunteered to take part in a pioneering and, in some quarters, controversial program that seeks to prevent sexual and other violence by helping male immigrants from societies that are largely segregated or in which women show neither flesh nor public affection to adapt to more open European societies.

^ Cultural racist hes generalizing a culture and people instead of saying that nobody ever all follow one type of thinking when its part of your culture but is up for change. Such a racist.

You really need to work on providing sources for your quotes, otherwise this is going to be impossible. I read that article, so I know where the quote is from, but really, poor form.

Again, though, there's totally an argument for that being cultural racism, but that does not make the person making it a racist. I'll emphasize this as much as I can: Making a racist argument does not make one a racist.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:


That mans words are the whole issue wrapped up in a bow and as you can see its got nothing to do with racism its everything to do with cultural differences and changes but look how many people make this about racism to counter simple cultural issues been addressed. "Racist!" is the counter and its not even needed people should be able to talk about this, even people from those cultures talk openly about it. What is a clear cut cultural clash issue has been made into a racial one thanks to overly PC individuals been unable to even look at other cultures without feeling guilty.

We just had a page where multiple people argued that this sort of behaviour is "inherent" in "islam" or "Arabic culture". That's not "talking about it", that's lazily sitting back in one's couch and tut-tut-ing over how barbaric those savages are. If you don't want to be called on making a cultural racist/cultural xenophobic/potato argument, stop trying to argue that this kind of behaviour is "inherent" to people because they are of a certain culture or ethnicity.

 nullBolt wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Cultural racism is not a new term. Deal with it.

And I didn't just blanket call the argument racist, I explained why: the assumption that all Arab culture is a homogenous blob IS racist, because it attributes traits, ideas and values to people not based on who they are, but where they are from. It's the same thing Nuggz accused me of doing earlier in the thread, and he wasn't entirely wrong.

Jesus, it's always the Swedes.

I'm rather tempted to be rude, but I'll just thank you for proving my point.

 nullBolt wrote:
How does the assumption that Arab culture is homogenous (it both is and isn't, but that's more because there are various sects of Islam than anything else) make people assign traits, ideas and values based on race? That makes NO SENSE, man. NONE.

Good thing that's not what I'm doing. Refer to above points. For what it's worth (and I doubt anyone's going to care, but whatever) cultural racism doesn't have the "racism" part because it's about groups of people but rather because it's an evolution of the "classical", biological racism, using similar beliefs in the immutability of races/cultures and the "inherent" traits of peoples/cultures.

 Frazzled wrote:

None of those quotes are from victims. I wonder if their opinions would change if they were targeted and victimized by a perp whose culture told him it was okay to do so.

Maybe not. But the quoted folks have no more valid opinion than the rest of us discussing it here. They are not privy to additional information.

Thats the issue NOT religion. By the very nature of cultures, you have immigrants coming in with different cultural norms. Layer on that the vast majority of troublemakers are males, and that you and have an environment where large groups of males are cut loose from their underlying society (having emigrated to a completely different trouble) and you develop a problem that needs to be addressed.

And it can be done without being "racist." Classes and programs on what society is in the home country, and thorough policing. Also as noted, this is not just an immigrant issue, but a society issue in every society.

Man, this is bad, I'm agreeing with Frazzled 100 %. Then again, we're both dog lovers.

You know who else loved dogs though?!

@Smacks

No what you're doing is called an equivocation fallacy a common word association fallacy used to win arguments with false connections. You can keep saying you're right that you proved me wrong but you're still wrong. It won't make what you say true.

 Smacks wrote:
You were the one who said discriminating against religion isn't racism. What I'm doing is pointing out that you are demonstrably wrong.

Discrimination alone is not racism, its what you discriminate against that makes certain discrimination racism. A religion is not a race, therefor discriminating against or questioning a religion is not racism. Thats why people can discriminate against Christians of any colour and not be racists. Instead of trying to tac on racism to discrimination thats not about race perhaps use an actual term for people been discriminatory against a people of a certain religious background its called Religious intolerance/intolerant, instead of hilariously trying to make it new racism when it doesn't fit. Square peg for round hole indeed. you see thats where your occupation racism came in, discrimination against a people who share an occupation instead of refering to it simply as discrimination you tried to tac on race-ism to make it feel more negative you see, word connotation

Your whole argument hinges on a fallacy thats already shown as false, you can't argue it further using flawed foundations. Maybe when you can argue that saying that certain aspects of other cultures/practices do not mix with western lifestyles ei treatment of women in skirts or openly kissing in public and might need to be educated for assimilation into those cultures is racism without resorting to word fallacies we can talk.

I mean occupation racism, thanks for the laugh though.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
A religion is not a race.

That is a rule that only exists in your head. Back in the real world, people who share a religion can unequivocally fall under the purview of "race". It might sound awkward to you, but that is irrelevant.

I mean occupation racism, thanks for the laugh though.

Again you seem to be confused between what sounds right to you, and what is actually the case.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
A religion is not a race.

That is a rule that only exists in your head.

my god.....incredible. Did you get your education at clown college per chance

Merriam-Webster wrote:

3 race
noun
Definition of race

1
: a breeding stock of animals

2
a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

3
a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : breed c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

4
obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition

5
: distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

Emphasis mine.

Link here.

I also like that you're poking fun at someone who's right while completely failing at providing sources for your claims, using shoddy punctuation, and failing to realize that emoticons aren't substitutes for punctuation.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
my god.....incredible. Did you get your education at clown college per chance

I take it that since you are resorting to childish insults, you have run out of arguments.

Where I got my education makes no difference, since you don't need to take my word for it. Go look in the dictionary, it is right there in black and white.

EDIT:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
I enjoy this quote from the comments which reflect I think general societies views as well but not yours

Most of us have learned the difference between race and religion by the time we were in middle school

General society's views, might be termed "common usage". Race is commonly used to refer to ethnicity (in recent times), which appears to be why you aren't able to understand how it can have any other meaning, even though it definitely does.

In your quote it is clear for the context that the writer is using the word "race" to talk about ethnicity/ancestry, and distinguishing that from religion. Which is fair enough, religion and ancestry are distinct things. But trying to build an argument around that is you equivocating again, because you are pretending there is no other meaning. I could also find a quote about an "egg and spoon race", and using your same argument, try to say that a race can't ever be a group of people because it is only a competition "see, look how this PHD guy used the word". But that would clearly be an asinine argument, which is easily disproved by looking in a dictionary, ergo: your argument is asinine and easily disproved by looking in a dictionary.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On my phone, so no long rant, but treating "Arab" culture or "Islamic" culture as if it's a homogenous blob is actually racist*, since it attributes certain values to people based solely on their geographical origin.

*Note that there's a difference between an argument being racist and the person making it being racist. It's quite possible to make racist arguments without being a racist (hell, I'm guilty of it myself), but that does not change that the argument is rubbish.

Neither arab nor islamic are geographical terms. Arab is an ethnical term, it refers to a people sharing a common language, culture and self-identification (and yes, I am aware that there are significant regional differences between Arabs, but that is true for most peoples, languages and cultures). Islamic is a religious term referring to any of the many diverse religions originating from the writings of the Prophet Muhammad. Neither is bound to geography. Treating them as if they are homogenous blobs is technically wrong, but it is extremely common not only with arabs and islam, but also with all other groups such as christians, russians, americans, homosexuals etc. That is the problem of groups and subgroups being made up of individuals. That is just the way people think. People automatically divide everything in groups. If that is racist, than everything is racist. Not that "racism" still means anything nowadays... It has been thrown around so much and used to refer to so many completely different, distinct things that it has become wooden language.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On my phone, so no long rant, but treating "Arab" culture or "Islamic" culture as if it's a homogenous blob is actually racist*, since it attributes certain values to people based solely on their geographical origin.

*Note that there's a difference between an argument being racist and the person making it being racist. It's quite possible to make racist arguments without being a racist (hell, I'm guilty of it myself), but that does not change that the argument is rubbish.

Neither arab nor islamic are geographical terms. Arab is an ethnical term, it refers to a people sharing a common language, culture and self-identification (and yes, I am aware that there are significant regional differences between Arabs, but that is true for most peoples, languages and cultures). Islamic is a religious term referring to any of the many diverse religions originating from the writings of the Prophet Muhammad. Neither is bound to geography. Treating them as if they are homogenous blobs is technically wrong, but it is extremely common not only with arabs and islam, but also with all other groups such as christians, russians, americans, homosexuals etc. That is the problem of groups and subgroups being made up of individuals. That is just the way people think. People automatically divide everything in groups. If that is racist, than everything is racist. Not that "racism" still means anything nowadays... It has been thrown around so much and used to refer to so many completely different, distinct things that it has become wooden language.

You're right, I should've written "the culture of Arab countries" as opposed to just "Arab", and ditto for "Islamic". The point still stands though, making assumptions of homogenity in heterogeneous societies (i.e. pretty much everywhere) is silly at best, and dangerous at worst.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I also like that you're poking fun at someone who's right while completely failing at providing sources for your claims, using shoddy punctuation, and failing to realize that emoticons aren't substitutes for punctuation.

I spot two ad hominem and no they're not right and just saying they're right from your opinion doesn't make it so. The definition of race is broad as we've mentioned before that still doesn't make questioning a religion racism because you still can be racist against, sex, occupation, religion or any other word thats under the term race. Racism is exclusively discrimination based on the biological definition of race not the others thats why someone who hates sports especially the racing ones are not racists.

As Ive said nobody in the real world associates racism with every term that comes under race doing that is more a Equivocation logical fallacy and is not regarded as factual reality.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Basically you've taken racism a term which has always had the connotation of discrimination based on biological race and applied it to every word under the dictionary of Race, many of which already have their own terms based on discrimination. Which is still regardless how many times you or he says it is not accurate and is a false argument and been a fallacy it distracts from the actual argument so you can seem like you have won the debate when in reality you have had no strong argument on the actual topic. Atleast what Ive presented is in logical realms of reality, takes into account interviews of actual immigrants and also takes into account cultural differences and education. all you have done is try to fallacy your way around the terminology and presented no argument against whats been said other than redefining racism so you can call peoples arguments on the topic racist so you can void whats been said. you have failed to make your own argument so you have used a fallacy to negate someone elses actual argument on the topic.

Poor show both of you. Im going to talk to people who can discuss their points about the actual subject without resorting to a page of logic fallacies literally attempting to redefine racism in lieu of making actual points. Literally you have gone a whole page arguing your rights to call people racists to void their arguments rather than debating and presenting your own argument.

but please ignore all of that and talk about emoticons some more at least I presented my on topic argument. Feel free to read it, its on those two pages, it talks about the differences in culture been the main points of all the issues currently faced in Germany and how racism is been used when its not necessary or even relevant to the topic, which is ironically where you two came in.
I'd look for both of your actual thoughts on the topic but I couldn't find them just lots of fallacies and calling other people wrong, great arguments really, if you can't make legit ones that is.

I'll end with this, this guy thinks you're wrong:
Todd Essig, Ph.D., is a Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst at the William Alanson White Institute and Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at New York Medical College.

I'm more inclined to agree with him and the general public and most places of education and the law on this matter than two people on a forum.

Have fun.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

The definition of race is broad as we've mentioned before that still doesn't make questioning a religion racism

WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING. Look, I've said it multiple times, I don't care if you call it cultural racism, cultural xenophobia, or what have you, the point I'm trying to make (which Iron_Captain for one seems to have been able to understand without any effort whatsoever) is that there isn't ever going to be a constructive discussion about the subject as long as people keep assuming that all Arabs have the same cultural values.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Point.

Now, can you please stop pretending that I'm attacking people for being critical of islam?

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

I spot two ad hominem

It's only an ad hominem fallacy if it's irrelevant to the discussion. You attacked Smacks with an ad hominem, I'm pointing out the delicious irony. I'm not attacking you personally to deflect from any other argument, I'm attacking you personally because you're being a hypocrite, which IS about what you are doing personally.

Complaining about logical fallacies when I've repeatedly asked you to stop putting words in my mouth also isn't going to win you any points for consistency.

 Smacks wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
A religion is not a race.

That is a rule that only exists in your head. Back in the real world, people who share a religion can unequivocally fall under the purview of "race". It might sound awkward to you, but that is irrelevant.

Wait what? Please recheck your statement.

Religion is thought. Any person of any genetic makeup can be in a religion.
"Racial" characteristics are based on genes.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
A religion is not a race.

That is a rule that only exists in your head. Back in the real world, people who share a religion can unequivocally fall under the purview of "race". It might sound awkward to you, but that is irrelevant.

Wait what? Please recheck your statement.

Religion is thought. Any person of any genetic makeup can be in a religion.
"Racial" characteristics are based on genes.

Technically incorrect, but as Los pollos has already pointed out, that didn't lead anywhere.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING. Look, I've said it multiple times, I don't care if you call it cultural racism, cultural xenophobia, or what have you, the point I'm trying to make (which Iron_Captain for one seems to have been able to understand without any effort whatsoever) is that there isn't ever going to be a constructive discussion about the subject as long as people keep assuming that all Arabs have the same cultural values.

And I was saying that talking about a culture as a whole or establishing that a peoples of a location that generally follows one culture/religion in general; will probably share the same cultural values is not racism, then we got swept up in semantics. Then we both got swept up when the other person shows up telling me that discriminating against anything under the dictionary of race is racism as we've established isn't accurate and is a fallacy, hence someone who hates egg and spoon races are not racists. Not my fault you threw your lot in with that argument and got caught up in it

Especially seen as you seem to have mentioned earlier that you agree that this is a culture clash issue and not a race one, which was like 90% of my original argument anyway.

The closest person who understood my (admittedly short) statements realised I'm talking about the teachings in the Q'oran. Westernised Muslims don't take them literally.

Countries that base their state on Islam like many in the Middle East follow Sunni teachings, many follow Salafi jihadism or Jihadist-Salafism - the most literal teachings.

When those teachings tell them to hunt down and kill non-muslims and that raping non-muslims is fine, it's engrained in the culture. Therefore Islam and the literal following of it is a problem.

It's nice people are defending it, but that's like defending someone in court who is guilty of a crime that you don't understand / are unaware of. That is the biggest problem facing Europe and Westernised Muslims / Moderate Muslim survival. - it's the refusal to identify where Salafists are getting these very specific ideas from because of fear of upsetting the extremists and being labelled a racist (something already happening on this thread). By refusing to do this and in many cases vindicating these literal followers, they will keep disregarding our laws and human rights and doing what they want.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
A religion is not a race.

That is a rule that only exists in your head. Back in the real world, people who share a religion can unequivocally fall under the purview of "race". It might sound awkward to you, but that is irrelevant.

Wait what? Please recheck your statement.

Religion is thought. Any person of any genetic makeup can be in a religion.
"Racial" characteristics are based on genes.

Technically incorrect, but as Los pollos has already pointed out, that didn't lead anywhere.

Please show me where someone is genetically a Buddhist. I'll wait.
We're all of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens (ok you people are, I neanderthal myself)
All the "races" are just genetic subgroups of humans with a few minor genetic variations.

That has nothing, nothing to do with religion.

The thing people get confused with when it comes to racism on this Islam issue is that when people hate or discriminate against Muslims they're not been racist they're been religiously intolerant and prejudice. If someone discriminates say all people who look Muslim as in the stereotype of a traditional Muslim they're racists but not because they discriminate against Muslims but because they discriminate against a race of people confusing them for their religion. You can be racist against a people but discriminatory against a religion its just everyone pro and against on both sides get these confused. If someone discriminates against someone thinking they're a Muslim because they look Muslim they're been both racist and religiously discriminatory but its not the same they're been racist but out of fear or anger towards a religion rather than thinking your race is superior. They become racist out of misconception but discriminating, questioning or disliking a religion will never be racism, it can however lead to racism. Its why Nazi's weren't considered racist against white people for hating Jewish people.

The main issue is most people can't separate a religion from a peoples.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
But there are specific aspects of and teachings in Islam that are deeply misogynistic by western standards which influence the behaviour of men brought up in Islamic cultures.

That would be a stronger argument if there's was also widespread evidence of Turkish rape mobs (Islamic culture), Asian rape mobs (Islamic culture) or Orthodox Jew rape mobs (Misogynist religion).

The commonality is the nature of culture and society in North Africa and the Arab states, not Islamic teaching (though note, I am neither defending or excusing it's misogynistic elements).

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
Basically you've taken racism a term which has always had the connotation of discrimination based on biological race

See, this is where you show your ignorance, because it hasn't always been used that way. In the past it was more commonly associated with language and nationality. It's probably only since the civil-rights movement that people have use it more to talk about "biology" (as you put it), basically, discriminating against black people. Because that is mostly how you've seen it use in your lifetime, you seem to be under the impression that it isn't ever used any other way. Which, if I'm being more fair than you deserve, is somewhat understandable, since language changes and using it in a different way has become uncommon lately. But "uncommon" does not mean "wrong". When you post here saying someone is "wrong" because they are using a word (correctly) in an uncommon way for lack of a better word, and then start pontificating about people "learning what words mean" (when you clearly haven't done so yourself), then it's perfectly reasonable to call you out on it.

You also appear to be confused because race(ethnicity) is a subset of race(group). This happens quite frequently with language, for example, the country of Malta is comprised of a number of islands, namely Gozo, Camino, and also an island called Malta. Someone might argue that a person from Gozo isn't Maltese, because they are not from the Island of Malta, but their passport would likely say "Maltese" because they are from the country of Malta. It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
A religion is not a race.

That is a rule that only exists in your head. Back in the real world, people who share a religion can unequivocally fall under the purview of "race". It might sound awkward to you, but that is irrelevant.

Wait what? Please recheck your statement.

Religion is thought. Any person of any genetic makeup can be in a religion.
"Racial" characteristics are based on genes.

Technically incorrect, but as Los pollos has already pointed out, that didn't lead anywhere.

Please show me where someone is genetically a Buddhist. I'll wait.
We're all of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens (ok you people are, I neanderthal myself)
All the "races" are just genetic subgroups of humans with a few minor genetic variations.

That has nothing, nothing to do with religion.

You could just read the thread Frazz.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
And I was saying that talking about a culture as a whole or establishing that a peoples of a location that generally follows one culture/religion in general; will probably share the same cultural values is not racism, then we got swept up in semantics.

I think you'll find that you're the one who got swept up in semantics. Again, it's not called "cultural racism" because of a focus on races, but because it's essentially the legacy of what you would call racism; the belief in inherent traits in a culture (in the case of cultural racism) or race (in the case of "tratidional" racism) and the attribution of these "inherent" traits to everyone in a group based solely on the fact that they belong to the group. In the end, that line of thinking gives us this:

 godardc wrote:

Seriously, just let them drowning in the Aegean, and they will stop coming.

To try to somewhat salvage the thread: Putting aside cultural differences for a second, what options are there, really? We either tell the refugees to piss off, "let them drown in the Aegean" or let them get blown to pieces in Syria, or we take in as many as we can and deal with the issues that brings (which is where not assuming all of the refugees are homogenous to one another comes in). Am I missing a third option?

SO you can't actually defend your asinine statement.

RACE IS NOT RELIGION. Its just stupid.

This thread reminds me the Christian kingdoms in the middle ages, bickering over pointless semantics and things and missing the point.... all the while the Jihad picks up pace.

Read my above point or just look up Salafism.

 Smacks wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
Basically you've taken racism a term which has always had the connotation of discrimination based on biological race

See, this is where you show your ignorance, because it hasn't always been used that way.

Its pretty much been that way since the early 19th century. So using the argument that im just using a too modern example and should have considered early 1800's meanings of the word isn't really relevant to debate is it unless we were discussing in a historical context when clearly we're talking about modern racism. Especially seen as you told me that 30 years is old enough for a new definition to be cemented as factual. I would think that the term race used for racism meaning biological race been used since the mid 1860's would be old hat enough for you to know that in today's world none historians context when people talk racism and race related to racism they're talking "modern" by like two centuries standard definitions

and this is still spiraling wildly away from the actual topic. Now I will never accept that racism by its definition and connotations can be applied to anything under the term race in the dictionary or that religion/religious ideology can be a victim of racism any more than a race car can be subjected to racism if someone really hates race cars. Im sure they all have their own names for those discrimination but its not racism.

 Wulfmar wrote:
The closest person who understood my (admittedly short) statements realised I'm talking about the teachings in the Q'oran. Westernised Muslims don't take them literally.

Countries that base their state on Islam like many in the Middle East follow Sunni teachings, many follow Salafi jihadism or Jihadist-Salafism - the most literal teachings.

When those teachings tell them to hunt down and kill non-muslims and that raping non-muslims is fine, it's engrained in the culture. Therefore Islam and the literal following of it is a problem.

It's nice people are defending it, but that's like defending someone in court who is guilty of a crime that you don't understand / are unaware of. That is the biggest problem facing Europe and Westernised Muslims / Moderate Muslim survival. - it's the refusal to identify where Salafists are getting these very specific ideas from because of fear of upsetting the extremists and being labelled a racist (something already happening on this thread). By refusing to do this and in many cases vindicating these literal followers, they will keep disregarding our laws and human rights and doing what they want.

Again, for the umpteenth time, the point we're making is that not every Muslim is a crazed salafist zealot. Islam is not the problem. Salafist interpretations of Islam, sure, not going to argue with you there. Further, would you mind linking where someone got called a racist in this thread? I must've missed it.

If you had free reign, how would you solve the problem?

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:


and this is still spiraling wildly away from the actual topic. Now I will never accept that racism by its definition and connotations can be applied to anything under the term race in the dictionary or that religion/religious ideology can be a victim of racism any more than a race car can be subjected to racism if someone really hates race cars. Im sure they all have their own names for those discrimination but its not racism.

They do have their own names, it's called cultural racism because it's similar to biological racism.

 Frazzled wrote:

RACE IS NOT RELIGION. Its just stupid.

Nascar fans would beg to differ

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Am I missing a third option?

The course I quoted like a million times is a good start for all recent immigrants/refugee's you can't just dump them on the street of a western based society and expect them to just merge in. Stricter rules and education, more tests/ things required of new immigrants/refugees to help assimilation. English lessons would be a good start (English is a great thing for anyone living in Europe, allows them to travel for work as well helping assimilation not just in one country but many), classes on teaching the differences of their new western homes. Shouldn't be hard to find things that are radically different in the culture and then help educate them on the new rules of the country. Its not rocket science for these governments and it would all go a lot quicker if every time people called them racist for thinking of doing such things because its not 100% keeping their culture safe. If I moved to the middle east I would be expected to adapt to that culture, if I moved to Japan I would be expected to adapt to their ways too why is it racist to suggest the same if its proven that violent crimes aka the thread currently is happening because of culture shock.

It almost always goes like this.

>New immigrant says its different in his culture, women shouldn't wear skirts and can be taken by any man without trouble
>Well we could teach similar men the new ways of their western countries they now live in, help assimilation and also stop calling police racist for arresting any immigrants for crimes to let those know its not ok and you will be punished.
> Someone: "you racist"
>face palm *sigh* and then you just stop trying to help Europe then.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
The closest person who understood my (admittedly short) statements realised I'm talking about the teachings in the Q'oran. Westernised Muslims don't take them literally.

Countries that base their state on Islam like many in the Middle East follow Sunni teachings, many follow Salafi jihadism or Jihadist-Salafism - the most literal teachings.

When those teachings tell them to hunt down and kill non-muslims and that raping non-muslims is fine, it's engrained in the culture. Therefore Islam and the literal following of it is a problem.

It's nice people are defending it, but that's like defending someone in court who is guilty of a crime that you don't understand / are unaware of. That is the biggest problem facing Europe and Westernised Muslims / Moderate Muslim survival. - it's the refusal to identify where Salafists are getting these very specific ideas from because of fear of upsetting the extremists and being labelled a racist (something already happening on this thread). By refusing to do this and in many cases vindicating these literal followers, they will keep disregarding our laws and human rights and doing what they want.

Again, for the umpteenth time, the point we're making is that not every Muslim is a crazed salafist zealot. Islam is not the problem. Salafist interpretations of Islam, sure, not going to argue with you there. Further, would you mind linking where someone got called a racist in this thread? I must've missed it.

If you had free reign, how would you solve the problem?

You quoted me but it's clear you didn't comprehend what was said. Your posts in particular have been a waste of time to read.

Someone else ask me something. I unlike many here have a copy of the Qur'an

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Am I missing a third option?

The course I quoted like a million times is a good start for all recent immigrants/refugee's you can't just dump them on the street of a western based society and expect them to just merge in. Stricter rules and education, more tests/ things required of new immigrants/refugees to help assimilation. English lessions would be a good start, classes on teaching the differences of their new western homes. Shouldn't be hard to find things that are radically different in the culture and then help educate them on the new rules of the country. Its not rocket science for these governments and it would all go a lot quicker if every time people called them racist for thinking of doing such things because its not 100% keeping their culture safe. If I moved to the middle east I would be expected to adapt to that culture, if I moved to Japan I would be expected to adapt to their ways too why is it racist to suggest the same if its proven that violent crimes aka the thread currently is happening because of culture shock.

That's option 2, "take in as many as possible and deal with the consequences".

And, again, there's no one claiming it's racist to argue that it's due to certain cultural values, the argument was that it's cultural racism/xenophobia/whatever/potato to act as if there's just one unified Islamic culture or Arab culture.

 Wulfmar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
The closest person who understood my (admittedly short) statements realised I'm talking about the teachings in the Q'oran. Westernised Muslims don't take them literally.

Countries that base their state on Islam like many in the Middle East follow Sunni teachings, many follow Salafi jihadism or Jihadist-Salafism - the most literal teachings.

When those teachings tell them to hunt down and kill non-muslims and that raping non-muslims is fine, it's engrained in the culture. Therefore Islam and the literal following of it is a problem.

It's nice people are defending it, but that's like defending someone in court who is guilty of a crime that you don't understand / are unaware of. That is the biggest problem facing Europe and Westernised Muslims / Moderate Muslim survival. - it's the refusal to identify where Salafists are getting these very specific ideas from because of fear of upsetting the extremists and being labelled a racist (something already happening on this thread). By refusing to do this and in many cases vindicating these literal followers, they will keep disregarding our laws and human rights and doing what they want.

Again, for the umpteenth time, the point we're making is that not every Muslim is a crazed salafist zealot. Islam is not the problem. Salafist interpretations of Islam, sure, not going to argue with you there. Further, would you mind linking where someone got called a racist in this thread? I must've missed it.

If you had free reign, how would you solve the problem?

You quoted me but it's clear you didn't comprehend what was said. Your posts in particular have been a waste of time to read.

Someone else ask me something.

Then explain it to me instead of being an ass. Your argument is that Salafists are getting their ideas from the Quran, therefore Islam, a religion based on the Quran, is the problem, no?

Yes. If the Qur'an could be edited then it wouldn't be such a problem with people taking it literally. I personally don't think non-believers should be crucified or have their hand/opposite foot cut off as stated in the Qur'an. Yet it's there in the book for all to see.

Those who take it literally are the issue. Because you can't edit the book, then it will always cause this issue. Therefore Islam is the problem.

I would be saying exactly the same thing about Christianity or other religions on similar passages if they had them so don't feel I'm picking on Islam out of prejudice of something

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's option 2

Except its not really, option two is what they're doing right now but instead of doing it right they're dumping a whole load of people from a different culture out onto Europeans streets and just leaving them to do whatever. Its not a melting pot of society they're forming a salad bowl, communities of cultures closed off to others and following their own ways and you've seen how it creates clashes in the streets and issues in crime. Europe is just letting everyone in and not attempting assimilation, welfare state lets anyone just live off the government, you don't have to work or jump through any real hoops. More rules, more assimilation, more lessons more getting them into actual work where they will interact with many other cultures not just group together. A multicultural society is one where you can practice your culture and still live and interact with others. Plenty of things in certain cultures if not multiculturised do not mix. If one culture doesn't let women wear skirts and now you have a lot of those people living where its a culture where they do, what do you do?

Option 1: is what they're doing, nothing just expecting it to work out
Option 2: thinking of changing native culture to be more accommodating which thy have been dancing with, blaming female victims, expecting them to just understand or forgive
Option 3: make people realize they have to assimilate to their new home with all the programs mentioned and deportation for criminal activity wouldn't hurt. These nations didn't have to take people in, the people should realize that they have to give a little and change something if they're going to be Europeans. Not everything, nothing says you can't keep your rich culture and not take women you want, or think of any woman in a skirt or unescorted by a man as a whore or that you're immune from European law now ect ect

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Then explain it to me instead of being an ass. Your argument is that Salafists are getting their ideas from the Quran, therefore Islam, a religion based on the Quran, is the problem, no?

The people are using Islam and their interpretation of the Quran's writings to do what they want. Neither source caused them to do it, but they state it as reasons for doing so.

Since someone here has the Quran, what does it really say about raping and killing non-believers?

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's option 2

Except its not really, option two is what they're doing right now but instead of doing it right they're dumping a whole load of people from a different culture out onto Europeans streets and just leaving them to do whatever. Its not a melting pot of society they're forming a salad bowl, communities of cultures closed off to others and following their own ways and you've seen how it creates clashes in the streets and issues in crime. Europe is just letting everyone in and not attempting assimilation, welfare state lets anyone just live off the government, you don't have to work or jump through any real hoops. More rules, more assimilation, more lessons more getting them into actual work where they will interact with many other cultures not just group together. A multicultural society is one where you can practice your culture and still live and interact with others. Plenty of things in certain cultures if not multiculturised do not mix. If one culture doesn't let women wear skirts and now you have a lot of those people living where its a culture where they do, what do you do?

Option 1: is what they're doing, nothing just expecting it to work out
Option 2: thinking of changing native culture to be more accommodating which thy have been dancing with, blaming female victims, expecting them to just understand or forgive
Option 3: make people realize they have to assimilate to their new home with all the programs mentioned and deportation for criminal activity wouldn't hurt. These nations didn't have to take people in, the people should realize that they have to give a little and change something if they're going to be Europeans. Not everything, nothing says you can't keep your rich culture and not take women you want, or think of any woman in a skirt or unescorted by a man as a whore or that you're immune from European law now ect ect

Sorry, I should've been clearer, what I meant was, other than "let as many in as we can, doing whatever we need to do to ensure we can cope" and "nope, let'em die", what options are there? There obviously needs to be steps taken to integrate so many people, but that's assuming that we've already chosen to let people in.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait what? Please recheck your statement.

Religion is thought. Any person of any genetic makeup can be in a religion.
"Racial" characteristics are based on genes.

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that religion shouldn't be confused with genetics. But if you look up the word "race" it doesn't exclusively pertain to genes, it can also refer to cultural characteristics, and in the broadest sense any distinguishing characteristics of a group. However, I don't think we have to go too broad to say that religion is a part of culture. So discriminating against someone based solely on their religion can legitimately be termed racism. Discriminating against Jews might be a modern example, where "racism" is commonly used to talk about discrimination against a group based mainly on their religion (jews aren't necessarily genetically distinguishable from non-jews).

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
So using the argument that im just using a too modern example and should have considered early 1800's meanings.

No, you are using one meaning out of many meanings, which are all listed in the dictionary right now in 2016, and you are pretending that is the only meaning because it is the one you personally like best, which is nonsense.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Those who take it literally are the issue. Because you can't edit the book, then it will always cause this issue. Therefore Islam is the problem.

Isn't that contradictory?
The Quran is not Islam. Islam is more than the book.
Otherwise, how are there multiple versions of Islam? Surely Sunni and Shiite use the same book.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Yes. If the Qur'an could be edited then it wouldn't be such a problem with people taking it literally. I personally don't think non-believers should be crucified or have their hand/opposite foot cut off as stated in the Qur'an. Yet it's there in the book for all to see.

Those who take it literally are the issue. Because you can't edit the book, then it will always cause this issue. Therefore Islam is the problem.

Wouldn't the problem be that people take it literally, rather than the fact that it's there? It's not exactly the same, but take the Young Earth Creationists as an example. They believe that the events in Genesis are literal, but there are also other people who believe that it is a metaphor or allegory. Is the problem not then that people come to take the text literally, rather than with the text itself?

As others have mentioned already, even if the Quran isn't officially ever changed, isn't the fact that there's multiple branches of Islam already proof enough that there are more than one way to read it? Is the problem with the religion in its entirety, or with a subset within it who use it to justify their actions?

BTW, props for actually continuing and arguing with me. I certainly don't see this as a waste of time, even if I don't agree with everything that's said or think I'll change anyone's mind.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
Those who take it literally are the issue. Because you can't edit the book, then it will always cause this issue. Therefore Islam is the problem.

Isn't that contradictory?
The Quran is not Islam. Islam is more than the book.
Otherwise, how are there multiple versions of Islam? Surely Sunni and Shiite use the same book.

Good question. It's not contradictory but what you think isn't uncommon - Islam is a religion as written in the Qur'an, which is taken as the literal word of God. There would be no Islam without the Qur'an. Islam is the translation into life of the book.

There are multiple versions based on multiple factors, chiefly how literal it's taken (Sunni take it literally and even this is on a scale with Salafists at the extreme end) and claims such as Ali being the successor of Mohammed and following a different line of thought based on martyrdom etc (Shia)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Wouldn't the problem be that people take it literally, rather than the fact that it's there? It's not exactly the same, but take the Young Earth Creationists as an example. They believe that the events in Genesis are literal, but there are also other people who believe that it is a metaphor or allegory. Is the problem not then that people come to take the text literally, rather than with the text itself?

As others have mentioned already, even if the Quran isn't officially ever changed, isn't the fact that there's multiple branches of Islam already proof enough that there are more than one way to read it? Is the problem with the religion in its entirety, or with a subset within it who use it to justify their actions?

BTW, props for actually continuing and arguing with me. I certainly don't see this as a waste of time, even if I don't agree with everything that's said or think I'll change anyone's mind.

The difference with young Earth Creationists and other ideas like that is that those ideas are harmless to others. For this reason you don't see the impact of such ideas in society.

For the second point it's the same as I wrote above to Skinnereal as to the subsets.

(BTW apologies for being an arse earlier, this whole thread is frustrating me and my English isn't fantastic so some of what I said has been taken to mean lots of different things earlier on - like this while racism thing stemmed from me saying Islam is the problem.

For context, I'm white Northern European, was raised in part by an Indian Hindu as my Dad worked a lot in Israel and China and my mum worked a lot in Ireland. I've lived in 4 different countries and have family in 8 including Turkey. I don't really identify with any particular culture and my friends base is very varied. One of my friends introduced me to Islam when I was going through a rough time, though I never converted. I'm not an expert on (I had to try and learn Arabic to read the Qur'an which I struggled with and am very poor at so he helped me a lot - additional context he was Shia). I'm one of those people who never really had a main home country but it does mean I've probably seen more interesting things than a fair few.

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait what? Please recheck your statement.

Religion is thought. Any person of any genetic makeup can be in a religion.
"Racial" characteristics are based on genes.

I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that religion shouldn't be confused with genetics. But if you look up the word "race" it doesn't exclusively pertain to genes, it can also refer to cultural characteristic, and in the broadest sense any distinguishing characteristic of a group. However, I don't think we have to go too broad to say that religion is a part of culture. So discriminating against someone based solely on their religion can legitimately be termed racism. Discriminating against Jews might be a modern example, where "racism" is used to talk about discrimination against a group based mainly on religion (jews aren't necessarily genetically distinguishable from non-jews).

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
So using the argument that im just using a too modern example and should have considered early 1800's meanings.

No, you are using one meaning out of many meanings, which are all listed in the dictionary right now in 2016, and you are pretending that is the only meaning because it is the one you personally like best, which is nonsense.

Except of course, people in these countries aren't all one religion. There are Egyptian Christians for example.
We are getting at an ism, but it isn't race, its national origin.

People from different countries, different regions have different cultures.

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course, people in these countries aren't all one religion. There are Egyptian Christians for example.
We are getting at an ism, but it isn't race, its national origin.

Well this is what we were talking about. What is the ism? AlmightyWalrus use the term "racism", which is a broad enough term to cover general discrimination against ethnicity, culture, nationality and other related characteristics. Los pollos hermanos tried to argue that racism can only mean discrimination against people based on their genetic heredity. It's really quite a minor point. I think if Los pollos hermanos doesn't want to use the word that way, then he doesn't have to... but he also tried to tell AlmightyWalrus that he was using the word wrong and "needed to learn what words mean". So we looked at the dictionary, and there is really nothing to suggest AlmightyWalrus used the word improperly. Los pollos hermanos' only supporting argument seems to be that he doesn't think it sounds right. Which depends heavily on the mistaken assumption that anyone cares what he thinks, when there is a perfectly good dictionary to hand, which is a much better source for us all to use as our semantic reference point.

Are you other guys not tired of trying to score points against each other over definitions and ignoring the actual discussion?

So reading the front page, 1000 immigrants go on a sexual assault spree and the mayors response is to victim blame?

Oh and we aren't supposed to use this as an anti-mass immigration argument.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Are you other guys not tired of trying to score points against each other over definitions and ignoring the actual discussion?

The thread is past its natural lifespan anyway. Im surprised its lasted this long.

Having said that, I've probably jinxed it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The BBC says the police chief has resigned. Should have been Merkel really.

I'll be astounded if she has the nerve to stand for re election.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SickSix wrote:
So reading the front page, 1000 immigrants go on a sexual assault spree and the mayors response is to victim blame?

Oh and we aren't supposed to use this as an anti-mass immigration argument.

Well to be fair it was probably less than 50. The rest were being drunk and disorderly and trying to kill people with fireworks for entertainment. The news reports I've seen aren't clear on how many of the 1000 strong crowd were directly involved in the attacks.

I hope the cathedral wasn't trashed. There were large groups gathering on the steps, setting off fireworks. That'd be pretty disgusting. Vandalizing the cultural and religious sites of a could that saver your life giving you asylum or a better life for economic migrants.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The BBC says the police chief has resigned. Should have been Merkel really.

I'll be astounded if she has the nerve to stand for re election.

To be fair, it is a local LE issue, and if the police chief failed to secure the event, failed to respond to the incidents in a timely manner, and failed to make arrests, he should be shouldering the blame. Merkel did not handle it well but a head of state resigning over an incident like this seems silly.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On my phone, so no long rant, but treating "Arab" culture or "Islamic" culture as if it's a homogenous blob is actually racist*, since it attributes certain values to people based solely on their geographical origin.

*Note that there's a difference between an argument being racist and the person making it being racist. It's quite possible to make racist arguments without being a racist (hell, I'm guilty of it myself), but that does not change that the argument is rubbish.

Neither arab nor islamic are geographical terms. Arab is an ethnical term, it refers to a people sharing a common language, culture and self-identification (and yes, I am aware that there are significant regional differences between Arabs, but that is true for most peoples, languages and cultures). Islamic is a religious term referring to any of the many diverse religions originating from the writings of the Prophet Muhammad. Neither is bound to geography. Treating them as if they are homogenous blobs is technically wrong, but it is extremely common not only with arabs and islam, but also with all other groups such as christians, russians, americans, homosexuals etc. That is the problem of groups and subgroups being made up of individuals. That is just the way people think. People automatically divide everything in groups. If that is racist, than everything is racist. Not that "racism" still means anything nowadays... It has been thrown around so much and used to refer to so many completely different, distinct things that it has become wooden language.

You're right, I should've written "the culture of Arab countries" as opposed to just "Arab", and ditto for "Islamic". The point still stands though, making assumptions of homogenity in heterogeneous societies (i.e. pretty much everywhere) is silly at best, and dangerous at worst.

I do not think generalisation is dangerous per se. It is neccessary for abstraction. It only gets dangerous when you take this "group thinking" too far and you see individuals no longer as individual people, but just as abstract parts of their group, as "arabs" or "muslims" rather than an individual etc. That unfortenately happens a lot in conflicts.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Are you other guys not tired of trying to score points against each other over definitions and ignoring the actual discussion?

It's actually quite relevant to the discussion. If someone says "I don't like a group of people" then it's kind of important to be able to define who exactly is in that group, and what exactly you don't like about them. Even though Muslims and Arabs are not distinct groups, there is unquestionably a lot of overlap. If someone says that they don't like something about one group, but they really mean the other group, then that person might be racist... Or just too ignorant to differentiate.

What was Merkel supposed to do in order to handle it "well"?

A local law enforcement event exacerbated by a national crisis and massive influx of immigrants deliberately encouraged by Merkel.

If law enforcement is overwhelmed as a result, Merkels policies are a direct factor.

The number of rude comments in this thread and warnings that have had to be given for this thread means we're done here