Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thank you LordofHats!

So it's about 60-40 in favour of Marcon? I figure he's going to win but I hope he won't.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Thank you LordofHats!

So it's about 60-40 in favour of Marcon? I figure he's going to win but I hope he won't.

Why? How is le Pen the better choice?

If only could we revive Napoleon...

W-wait, what I'm saying?! Viva la PEPA!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Thank you LordofHats!

So it's about 60-40 in favour of Marcon? I figure he's going to win but I hope he won't.

Why? How is le Pen the better choice?

Anti-EU.

I don't know how theres a Anti-EU sentiment in France and Germany when they are the most benefited about it.

(I'm not saying other countrys don't receive benefits, but not in the same way and number. Spain received many subventions and many money, but at the same time Bruselas did make us destroy our Industrial capacity. )

Because it's an easy scapegoat for demagogue I guess.

Rage and fear.

Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rage and fear.

Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.

Say what you really mean. If you don't support the EU you're a thicko right?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rage and fear.

Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.

Say what you really mean. If you don't support the EU you're a thicko right?

TIL what "thicko" means...

OT... the gift that keeps on giving.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rage and fear.

Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.

I think that many legitimate reasons exist to be anti-EU. Is not like the European Union is a sacred thing giving to us mere mortals by God. Personally, I'm more in the "Reform" crown that the "Destroy it!" group.
But thats exactly why I don't understand people in France or Germany, the two countrys that most benefit from the current state of the European Union, having a strong anti-EU movement or rethoric. I'm pretty sure there are cultured people that know the reasonable arguments they have to be anti-EU, totally or partially, but I agree that, as basically every issue in the society, the mayority of people don't really understand all the layers of the problems and prefer to remain ignorant and vote based in slogans.

 whembly wrote:
TIL what "thicko" means...

OT... the gift that keeps on giving.

Thicko...as in thick...as in as thick as two short planks...as in stupid.

 Galas wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rage and fear.

Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.

I think that many legitimate reasons exist to be anti-EU. Is not like the European Union is a sacred thing giving to us mere mortals by God. Personally, I'm more in the "Reform" crown that the "Destroy it!" group.
But thats exactly why I don't understand people in France or Germany, the two countrys that most benefit from the current state of the European Union, having a strong anti-EU movement or rethoric. I'm pretty sure there are cultured people that know the reasonable arguments they have to be anti-EU, totally or partially, but I agree that, as basically every issue in the society, the mayority of people don't really understand all the layers of the problems and prefer to remain ignorant and vote based in slogans.

Because rage and fear can overwhelm any reason or logical argument.

More to the point however, it becomes a path for power to outsiders. If the "in" group is pro-eu, and you want to get into politics or push an agenda, well, adopting an anti-"whatever they're for" stance is a pretty basic way to obtain an instant voting base even if the idea is dumb, and plenty of people are always willing to cut their (or their nation's) nose off to spite their face for a wide variety of reasons, even moeso if they personally will sustain none of the real burden.

Domestic politics often drive otherwise incomprehensible foreign policy.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 whembly wrote:
TIL what "thicko" means...

OT... the gift that keeps on giving.

Thicko...as in thick...as in as thick as two short planks...as in stupid.

Yup... I got the connotation initially (ie, speako), but never heard/seen someone use thicko so I googled it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rage and fear.

Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.

I think that many legitimate reasons exist to be anti-EU. Is not like the European Union is a sacred thing giving to us mere mortals by God. Personally, I'm more in the "Reform" crown that the "Destroy it!" group.
But thats exactly why I don't understand people in France or Germany, the two countrys that most benefit from the current state of the European Union, having a strong anti-EU movement or rethoric. I'm pretty sure there are cultured people that know the reasonable arguments they have to be anti-EU, totally or partially, but I agree that, as basically every issue in the society, the mayority of people don't really understand all the layers of the problems and prefer to remain ignorant and vote based in slogans.

Because rage and fear can overwhelm any reason or logical argument.

More to the point however, it becomes a path for power to outsiders. If the "in" group is pro-eu, and you want to get into politics or push an agenda, well, adopting an anti-"whatever they're for" stance is a pretty basic way to obtain an instant voting base even if the idea is dumb, and plenty of people are always willing to cut their (or their nation's) nose off to spite their face for a wide variety of reasons, particularly if they personally will sustain none of the real costs.

So... let's see if my projection powah truly exists:

Le Pen has no chance in hades of winning.

What time will we know this weekend?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One of the key points of the EU is free movement of people. There are no immigration quotas between EU member nations. That is something Le Pen and her supporters want to stop.

Sorry, I was thinking about permanent migration, EU migration tends to be more transitory, largely because it is easier. But yes, within the EU there is free movement. Man you're really kicking my ass on this one


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
You must be including instances of conversion of at least on of the parties, that's the main method of working around the blanket . Some of these conversions are purely platitudes, others more sincere. The important part in both Jewish and Muslim (and in the case of Catholic/Protestants) intermarriages is what faith the children will be brought up in. And in the matter of Islam, only the marriage of a Muslim male to a women 'of the book' (Jewish/Christian) is technically permitted. It is a controversial Imam indeed who broadens that scope to include marrying Muslim women to men of other faiths.

I know of two marriages involving one muslim partner, I don't know either well enough to know all the details, but I do know there was no conversion. In one case I know the woman had no religion at all, but th

To illustrate how this is working, here's another fun fact for you - the Catholic Church maintains a strong stance against contraception. It's just among catholics on the ground in the west almost no-one cares, and they almost universally ignore that nonsense. Modern life has given members the power to pick and choose how they engage with their church. This means various churches can no longer assume the role of passing down dictates and demand their members follow them. Islam in the West will be no different.

Indeed, one of the things that had AQ freaking out, back in the day, was how Islamic churches in the West were modernising.

It is wishful thinking however to assume that Islam is not a different kettle of fish to previous waves of immigration. The violence perpetrated by those of that faith, most worryingly by successive generations raised in the host nation, on behalf of some global agenda is something not seen in previous immigration waves.

You're mixing up the nightly news with actual people. The news looks at the random crazies and the geopolitical players, and when that's people's only exposure they think that's how everyone in the faith is.

But here's the thing - almost all people truly, deeply, just don't give a gak about that nonsense. They just want to have happy, secure families, and a bit of money and time on top of that to have some fun. There isn't a religion on earth that can make people care about geo-political theory more than they care about living a normal life. Of course you can always get a minority to buy in to that nonsense, whether its the IRA, Red Army Faction or ISIS, but that's all, a crazy minority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Antario wrote:
-The elaborate welfare state reduces the incentive to find work and acquire relevant job skills, particular among poor and low educated migrants.
(snip)
-Most West European economies are heavily service based, industry and agriculture are mechanized and high minimum wages are the norm. There is little demand for low skilled labor, so there is massive unemployment among non-western migrants.-The lack of diversity of migrants, mostly from one region in the world and by and large working class, means its harder to prevent clustering to reduce socio-economic disadvantages

These three points are quite telling, I think. I'm not going to debate how accurate they are, to be honest I couldn't say with any authority. But to the extent they are true, they are failures of immigration policy, not failures of immigration itself. Bringing in migrants with few skills relevant to the economy, with no visa condition that they find gainful employment, and then giving them immediate access to welfare is plainly fething bonkers.

To the extent your claims are true, the answer isn't 'immigration is bad' but 'we need better immigration policy'.

I wonder how many people are making claims like yours above, and then going on to say that existing immigration quotas are fine, but policy need to change on who is accepted?

 sebster wrote:
Indeed, one of the things that had AQ freaking out, back in the day, was how Islamic churches in the West were modernising.

Too expand on this, one of the early notable things about Al Qaeda's rhetoric (and indeed something that set it apart from earlier extremist groups), was the distinction it drew between "proper muslims" and "all those other people." Al Qaeda was one of the first major groups to make a distinction between what is and is not proper for a muslim in a very direct sense. Long story short, they embraced the "No True Muslim" fallacy all the way to crazy land and used that as a basis to justify violent attacks against other Muslims.

You can see a softer form of this in how Wahabist Saudi Arabia interacts with the Hajj year to year. While Wahabists welcome anyone who claims to be a Muslim, they have a very clear idea of what the Hajj should entail and have suppressed aspects of it they consider deviant. This has involved the destruction of a lot of tombs to stop the age old tradition of Tomb and House visits by Hajjis. As an example a class mate of mine just gave a presentation on the Mali folk hero Hang Tuah. His tale involves the Hajj and visiting the Tomb of Eve. The Saudi government destroyed the Tomb of Eve in 1928 to stop people from visiting it. Except people kept visiting so they just concreted the whole place in 1975.

Point being stop assuming Islam is a monolith with a hive mind. It's as varied as any religion with one billion adherents can be expected to be, which is a lot.

 sebster wrote:


I know of two marriages involving one muslim partner, I don't know either well enough to know all the details, but I do know there was no conversion. In one case I know the woman had no religion at all, but th

I personally know two as well. One female Muslim partner and one male Muslim partner. Both converted, and both had Muslim-style weddings. To be fair my mate is getting married to a Romani-Orthodox chick and he's converting as well despite his deep-seated distaste for religion. I don't doubt he'll roll over and let the missus raise their kids to be proper Romani-Dutch-Gypsies or whatever they are.

To illustrate how this is working, here's another fun fact for you - the Catholic Church maintains a strong stance against contraception. It's just among catholics on the ground in the west almost no-one cares, and they almost universally ignore that nonsense. Modern life has given members the power to pick and choose how they engage with their church. This means various churches can no longer assume the role of passing down dictates and demand their members follow them. Islam in the West will be no different.

Indeed, one of the things that had AQ freaking out, back in the day, was how Islamic churches in the West were modernising.

Fair enough, the majority of folk pick and choose their faith. That doesn't address the fact that status quo in favour killing apostates in Islam doesn't really have an equivalent that is strongly followed in it's counterpart religions in the modern era. You probably heard Ayaan Hirsi Ali's trip was cancelled recently, she is an apostate and a very outspoken critic of Islam.
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/ayaan-hirsi-ali-slams-petition-opposing-her-australian-visit/8414800

It is wishful thinking however to assume that Islam is not a different kettle of fish to previous waves of immigration. The violence perpetrated by those of that faith, most worryingly by successive generations raised in the host nation, on behalf of some global agenda is something not seen in previous immigration waves.

You're mixing up the nightly news with actual people. The news looks at the random crazies and the geopolitical players, and when that's people's only exposure they think that's how everyone in the faith is.

But here's the thing - almost all people truly, deeply, just don't give a gak about that nonsense. They just want to have happy, secure families, and a bit of money and time on top of that to have some fun. There isn't a religion on earth that can make people care about geo-political theory more than they care about living a normal life. Of course you can always get a minority to buy in to that nonsense, whether its the IRA, Red Army Faction or ISIS, but that's all, a crazy minority.

Absolutely. The vast majority of people, religious or not, just want to be left alone and follow their own pursuits. It was not my intention to imply that the extremism stems from the majority. However, are you really going to deny that the systemic violence in Islam is not a far greater issue than that found in it's religious counterparts? According to this article, Jewish zionists carry out more terrorist attacks on US soil than Muslim fundamentalists. http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619
Is this really to be trusted? I can't recall a single incident of severe terrorist actions being attributed to jewish religious nuts outside of Israel, the article also doesn't account for all the failed or prevented plots in their successful national security operations. Meanwhile Sunni Muslims are responsible for the majority terrorist attacks around the world.

Christianity (and it's deriviatives) 2.2 Billion
Islam (Shia and Sunni etc) 1.6 Billion
Secular/Atheist 1.1 Billion
Hinduism 1.0 Billion
Buddhism 364 Million

There are Buddhist terrorists in South East Asia, there are Hindu riots and militarist organisations in India, there are fundamentalist Christian armed forces in Ireland, Eastern Europe and South America. But the scale of violence perpetrated by these religious groups and their own home-grown supporters pales in comparison to the widespread issue that Islam faces. Isolated examples of a similar issue in other religions doesn't mean that the problem with Islam is exaggerated far out of proportion by Western media. To deny that there is some sort of underlying issue in the faith that is perpetuating this is to blindfold oneself.

Sunni Muslims would consider some of Mossad's operations to be terrorist attacks, and they aren't entirely wrong (which is sad but true). Going way back, some of the world first suicide killers were Jews opposing the Roman occupation of Judah. it is even from them that we derive the word zealot.

Just because the west largely only pays attention to Islamic terrorism doesn't mean other forms don't exist. Christian terrorists exist in Africa, and Buddhist terrorists are fairly common in South East Asia. The Han Empire's decline began with a mass rebellion by Daoist extremists. The difference in the scale of violence actually isn't that big. The IRA was pretty fething bloody. The difference is who the violence is directed at and how it is perceived by the victim group. We consider people who blow up abortion clinics "lone nuts" around here and not a sign of a problem with Christians, but when a Islamic "lone nut" does something it's part of the "problem of the faith." It's a double standard we only direct against Islam despite the overwhelming majority of those 1.6 billion people being about as harmless as the rest of us.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rage and fear.

Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.

Say what you really mean. If you don't support the EU you're a thicko right?

No, of course not, you only need to look at Boris Johnson to see that some very clever people are anti-EU.

That said, it is true that the average educational attainment of anti-EU people is lower than that of pro-EU people.

To the extent that educational attainment reflects intelligence, this would indicate that considered as a generality, the anti-EU block has somewhat less capability to research and analyse information using objective data such as immigration flows, employment statistics, and the like.

I would argue that this means such people are more prone to being misled into blaming immigrants for economic problems rather than the after-effects for the global economic crisis.

Anti-EU people in the UK and France agree that one reason for leaving the EU is that uncontrolled immigration from EU countries damages the employment prospects of natives, thus, we must regain control of our borders.

When we look into immigration statistics for the UK and France, we find that the UK has experienced proportionately more immigration than France, and both countries have about the same proportion of EU immigration compared with non-EU (namely, that less than half the immigrants are uncontrolled EU citizens.) Despite this, the UK now has a lower unemployment rate.

It is difficult to square these facts with the view that uncontrolled EU immigration is a major driver of unemployment.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
I personally know two as well. One female Muslim partner and one male Muslim partner. Both converted, and both had Muslim-style weddings. To be fair my mate is getting married to a Romani-Orthodox chick and he's converting as well despite his deep-seated distaste for religion. I don't doubt he'll roll over and let the missus raise their kids to be proper Romani-Dutch-Gypsies or whatever they are.

My wife is Catholic, and we were married in a Catholic church. I didn't have to convert, and wouldn't have, but the priest asked a few times, always politely. Our kids are going through the whole communion thing. Honestly it seems like a bit of a dick move to refuse that upbringing, the kids will experience it and in time they can choose if it is for them or not.

Fair enough, the majority of folk pick and choose their faith. That doesn't address the fact that status quo in favour killing apostates in Islam doesn't really have an equivalent that is strongly followed in it's counterpart religions in the modern era.

There's a lot of issues in Islam, honestly killing of apostates is way down the list compared to honour killings and sexism. Just as a matter of scale there's a lot more women who's lives are ruined out in the boonies of Pakistan or Iran than who's lives are ruined by terrorism.

However, I think the key part of your answer is 'in the modern era'. I think that shows you acknowledge that other religions were much the same, before modern society drove improvements. But a lot of the world hasn't yet benefited from high levels of education and modern living, and that's where you see most (not all) of the issues with religion.

But if we were take take countries on about the same level of development, but with different religions, I'm not sure we see the same contrast. Take Hinduism in India, Islam in Indonesia and Christianity in, say, the Philippines, and while there are issues in all three, it's pretty hard to make an argument that any one of those countries clearly has bigger issues than the others.

Is this really to be trusted? I can't recall a single incident of severe terrorist actions being attributed to jewish religious nuts outside of Israel, the article also doesn't account for all the failed or prevented plots in their successful national security operations. Meanwhile Sunni Muslims are responsible for the majority terrorist attacks around the world.

One thing about terror attacks is that most attacks are non-violent. It's blowing up a post office box or setting fire to a lab that tests with animals, nonsense like that. Islam is different because its attacks are not just violent, but intended for that violence to have the biggest impact and media appeal. So that gets people's attention far more than anything else.

So on the one hand the reports stating that Islam commits fewer terror attacks is quite misleading, because it treats all terror attacks as equal, when a shooting spree killing a dozen is wildly different to firebombing a clinic at 3 in the morning. But on the other hand, we have to recognise that despite the high profile and often shocking nature of many terror attacks, in a planet of 7 billion it really is very small compared to other problems.

And I don't say that to diminish issues within Islam. I mentioned above about honour killings. In Pakistan alone there's almost 1,000 every year. That dwarfs Islamic terror attacks undertaken in the West.

 Galas wrote:
If only could we revive Napoleon...

W-wait, what I'm saying?! Viva la PEPA!

Suddenly Frazzled desires to return to France...to Empire! oh wait...dangit!

 sebster wrote:
I know of two marriages involving one muslim partner, I don't know either well enough to know all the details, but I do know there was no conversion. In one case I know the woman had no religion at all, but th

I have a very good Iranian friend who is officially Muslim (in reality atheist) and her husband had a fake conversion so they could be a fake Muslims couple when they go in Iran.
I have another very good friend whose future wife is Indonesian and he will have a fake conversion too.
I didn't ask but I think his wife doesn't actually believe either .

 sebster wrote:
There's a lot of issues in Islam, honestly killing of apostates is way down the list compared to honour killings and sexism. Just as a matter of scale there's a lot more women who's lives are ruined out in the boonies of Pakistan or Iran than who's lives are ruined by terrorism.

WTF dude? Killing apostate is pretty much at the top. First because killing people for no crime is always a pretty big deal, second because apostates are the way out of all the other terrible stuff…
Seriously, killing apostates is basically the most extreme cults can become.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 sebster wrote:
There's a lot of issues in Islam, honestly killing of apostates is way down the list compared to honour killings and sexism. Just as a matter of scale there's a lot more women who's lives are ruined out in the boonies of Pakistan or Iran than who's lives are ruined by terrorism.

WTF dude? Killing apostate is pretty much at the top. First because killing people for no crime is always a pretty big deal, second because apostates are the way out of all the other terrible stuff…
Seriously, killing apostates is basically the most extreme cults can become.

O.o

Killing apostate is practically the justification for jihad.

I'm going to give seb the benefit of the doubt that he didn't think this through...

Sebster was talking about numbers. Theres many many more people that suffer the Sexist aspect of Islam, or the honour killings, that appostates being killed by Islamist.
Or thats how I have interpreted it.

Is Islamic killing of apostates a serious problem in France?

EDIT.

When does the polls close this weekend?

 Galas wrote:
Sebster was talking about numbers. Theres many many more people that suffer the Sexist aspect of Islam, or the honour killings, that appostates being killed by Islamist.

Yeah, but it still have a great deal of influence on public discourse on many Muslim-majority countries, and it's a huge problem in places like Pakistan or Bangladesh. And it goes beyond just extra-judicial killings and executions, even in place Tunisia when people are jailed for talking about why they became apostate it has a huge influence on which ideas people are exposed to.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is Islamic killing of apostates a serious problem in France?

No, thankfully!

 whembly wrote:
When does the polls close this weekend?

I think around 8PM. French time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There was a debate this evening between Macron and Le Pen on TV.
He was much more on the defensive, trying to explain and defend his program and defend his program, while she was much more on the offensive, trying to blame him for basically everything the previous governments did, and attacking him for being supported by some whatever Muslim organization.
Damn lady you have been supported by way worse for way longer why are you bringing this up lol.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
WTF dude? Killing apostate is pretty much at the top. First because killing people for no crime is always a pretty big deal, second because apostates are the way out of all the other terrible stuff…
Seriously, killing apostates is basically the most extreme cults can become.

Just... read what I said dude. The issue is one of scale, how many people are negatively impacted by the issue. A minute percentage of Muslims commit to killing apostates, compared to a much more widely accepted treatment of women*

Think of it this way. A dude who abducts, tortures and kills people is about as evil as a person can be. But that guy is less of an issue than cancer on a basic matter of scale. Even if that dude killed 100 people in his life, he wouldn't impact lives in anything like the scale that cancer does.




*This isn't to say every muslim has issues with women, of course not. And the extreme end, honour killings, is also a small minority view (albeit a much larger minority than that which supports terrorism). But it is an issue with a large enough base that it really impacts the lives of millions of women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I'm going to give seb the benefit of the doubt that he didn't think this through...

I'm gonna give everyone no benefit of any doubt. You didn't read what I said. Hybrid didn't read what I said. If you'd read what I said, you'd have seen my argument focused on scale. This doesn't mean you are Hybrid have to agree with it, of course, but it should be pretty clear to see where I'm coming from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
There was a debate this evening between Macron and Le Pen on TV.
He was much more on the defensive, trying to explain and defend his program and defend his program, while she was much more on the offensive, trying to blame him for basically everything the previous governments did, and attacking him for being supported by some whatever Muslim organization.
Damn lady you have been supported by way worse for way longer why are you bringing this up lol.

Did her plagiarism come up?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rage and fear.

Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.

Say what you really mean. If you don't support the EU you're a thicko right?

There is the assumption amongst the Guardian set that anyone voting to leave was a knuckle dragger or far right or both.
Its easier than facing the arguments.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I'm going to give seb the benefit of the doubt that he didn't think this through...

I'm gonna give everyone no benefit of any doubt. You didn't read what I said. Hybrid didn't read what I said. If you'd read what I said, you'd have seen my argument focused on scale. This doesn't mean you are Hybrid have to agree with it, of course, but it should be pretty clear to see where I'm coming from.

Naw man... I responded after Galas stating I was wrong, but the mod said it wasn't French politics so I edited it out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
There was a debate this evening between Macron and Le Pen on TV.
He was much more on the defensive, trying to explain and defend his program and defend his program, while she was much more on the offensive, trying to blame him for basically everything the previous governments did, and attacking him for being supported by some whatever Muslim organization.
Damn lady you have been supported by way worse for way longer why are you bringing this up lol.

Did her plagiarism come up?

---as my contribution to French elections...

Le Pen did say to Macron something like ”Don’t play the student – teacher game with me. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not my thing.”.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rage and fear.

Anti-EU support is correlated with low educational attainment.

Say what you really mean. If you don't support the EU you're a thicko right?

There is the assumption amongst the Guardian set that anyone voting to leave was a knuckle dragger or far right or both.
Its easier than facing the arguments.

Just like it's easier to make up strawmen to fight against?