*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

It's not that he's saying it's a 'bad' religion with some fucked up rules when it's adhered to passionately. I don't think anyone can dispute that (though I think we've made some good arguments about that being true of many religions).

It's the idea that everyone who belongs to that religion is by default dangerous until proven otherwise and shouldn't be allowed to emigrate here, and that if they are allowed, they'll breed like rabbits and take over and turn the UK into a theocracy. It's just such paranoid babble.

[boost]

People are people, though. It's convenient to say that the religions you were raised in and/or around are the good ones and the ones you weren't raised in or around are the less good ones, but it's the same story from all sides, so it's almost certainly a wash.

You're making the argument that I parenthetically addressed. But lets dig in a bit. Imagine a religion that holds that the path to a glorious afterlife of eternal bliss can only be reached by doing your best to bring about hell on earth. Think of it as a sort of religion that applies the laws of conservation to happiness. If you can't make the case that this religion is worse than Buddhism, then I'd kindly ask you to take your head out your ass and try again.

People on fundamentalist rampages say it's because of their religion. However, the people swooping in to help in the aftermath of such events also say they are doing so because of their religion, and the vast majority of the time (the world over), it's the same religion in both cases. If the same explanation is used to describe opposing outcomes, that explanation is wrong.

This is all sorts of faulty. They aren't the same inputs and they aren't opposing outcomes. People who bought and sold human beings as slaves also loved their children. Culture and religions are complex systems which result in a plethora of outcomes if any one variable shifts. The point I'm aiming at is that on balance no two set of complex ideas are going to produce equally desirable outcomes. Take this point independently. Don't imagine where it will lead you. Actually contemplate how absurd the notion is.

I.e. Why those people say they are doing what they're doing is definitely, definitely not the actual reason, not the whole story, NOT the motivating factor in their choices, but a rationalization.

Is it your position that Nazi Germany had a disproportionate number of sociopaths? That Nazi rhetoric and doctrine had no influence over a large number of people's decision to carry out or stand by and watch a genocide? Nazism is an abhorrent set of ideas that, on balance, had atrocious outcomes. But guess what, Nazi's also produce engineering marvels, carried out marvelous public works projects, and had a great sense of style. What's wrong? Don't wanna play post-modernist mumbo-jumbo with this set of ideas?

[boost]

If you didn't care what people think, you wouldn't be trying to change their minds.


It's not that. It's that you're pretending they're dumb over 1 issue you already know you disagree on. The reality is that you know they're not dumb, because of their positions on many other issues, and that's not a factor in their position. The reality is that they're answering all your concerns with clearly intelligent positions, yet those positions don't mean as much to you as your own. It's a cop-out for you to pretend that people you know are intelligent are dumb just because you disagree on this.

Besides if we talk about anything else, we're more friendly toward each other. Why are we harping one of the few subjects that increases tension?


Let's just accept that there's disagreement on this. You believe what you believe and other people don't all agree with you. So what?
That doesn't mean anyone is stupid. We just disagree.

I like this post a lot. In these times we all do tend to have this sick attraction to that which divides us.

That being said, and while I don't think you guys are dumb, I disagree with the bold. "They're all the same, just with different window dressings." is not an intelligent take on religions. It's a cop out that avoids further inquiry. I think the root of it tends to be good intentions-- a desire to not be intolerant, but that doesn't make it intelligent.

[boost]

It's not that he's saying it's a 'bad' religion with some fucked up rules when it's adhered to passionately. I don't think anyone can dispute that (though I think we've made some good arguments about that being true of many religions).

It is true of many religions. But the question is, how easy is it to go from benign to miseryville within the constraints of the religion? If you want to lump all Abrahamic religions together and say they're all equally bad, well, I disagree, but they certainly are hard to distinguish on the spectrum when you have to zoom out enough to get Jainism within view. Can you at least grant Jainism is a better set of ideas than Islam?

It's the idea that everyone who belongs to that religion is by default dangerous until proven otherwise and shouldn't be allowed to emigrate here, and that if they are allowed, they'll breed like rabbits and take over and turn the UK into a theocracy. It's just such paranoid babble.

To be clear, I picked up on some of these vibes from Ong's posts as well. Just because I think you guys are forcing yourselves to be obtuse on whether or not Islam is a bad set of ideas doesn't mean I think immigrants should be turned away based on their religion, or whatever. Just like differences in the sexes, there's a huge overlap in the goodness of the adherents of different religions. There are tons of Muslim people I'd much rather have here than tons of non Muslim people.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're making the argument that I parenthetically addressed. But lets dig in a bit. Imagine a religion that holds that the path to a glorious afterlife of eternal bliss can only be reached by doing your best to bring about hell on earth. Think of it as a sort of religion that applies the laws of conservation to happiness. If you can't make the case that this religion is worse than Buddhism, then I'd kindly ask you to take your head out your ass and try again.

I can say that Buddhism sounds like it appeals to me more. I can only hope I'm not in the minority, and that causing direct harm to people remains illegal on many levels across the world. But like... if the hell on Earth is to wear goth clothes or make film noir or be generally a dick to people, then meh. I'm cool with that about as much as Buddhism. If they're being criminals, whether they say their dog or their god told them to do it, they should be prosecuted as criminals. If not, then let them be their own kind of crazy.

I can only appeal to democratic rule. If the savages outnumber the sane, then the savagery reigns.
Historically, there've been some pretty dark times. It seems naive to think there wont be more. I don't think attacking someone's religion is a move in the right direction. Maybe, but Christians get all in a tizzy once a year over non-Christians suggesting that maybe shoving Christmas-themed crap into every corner of retail America is on the overkill side of things. They're all, "Ehrmagherd it's a war on Christmas!" and nothing changes.

This is all sorts of faulty. They aren't the same inputs and they aren't opposing outcomes. People who bought and sold human beings as slaves also loved their children.

Huh?
I'm saying a Muslim terrorist attack against Muslims is responded to by Muslim police forces and Muslim firefighters and Muslim EMTs and Muslim doctors. All of them say they do it for their religion.
It doesn't add up.
If the same thing - Islam - explains opposing outcomes - the terrorism and the fight against terrorism - then we're not getting at the truth.
The religion is a common factor used to explain disparate outcomes. Therefore, the religion is not the real, underlying, motivating factor. It's a false positive.

Culture and religions are complex systems which result in a plethora of outcomes if any one variable shifts. The point I'm aiming at is that on balance no two set of complex ideas are going to produce equally desirable outcomes. Take this point independently. Don't imagine where it will lead you. Actually contemplate how absurd the notion is.

"Equally desirable" can't be well-defined across all people.
In terms of socio-political-economic systems, history shows that different schemas excel on different scales and that humans can be quite adaptable to making a schema work beyond its optimal bounds.

Are North Korean people really any less happy than you or I on average?
I legit don't know, but I suspect you'd find about the same ratios of happy people, grumpy people, people that can tell a joke, people that are quick to anger, etc. in any human population. Cultures vary, but humanity doesn't really.

(1)Is it your position that Nazi Germany had a disproportionate number of sociopaths? (2)That Nazi rhetoric and doctrine had no influence over a large number of people's decision to carry out or stand by and watch a genocide? (3)Nazism is an abhorrent set of ideas that, on balance, had atrocious outcomes. But guess what, Nazi's also produce engineering marvels, carried out marvelous public works projects, and had a great sense of style. (4)What's wrong? (5)Don't wanna play post-modernist mumbo-jumbo with this set of ideas?

(1) no. Just a few prominent ones that got to ride the charismatic wave of Hitler and found themselves in positions of tremendous consequence. (I'm not trained to diagnose sociopathy, but for my layman's understanding, it seems like a safe bet.)
(2) no
(3) yes
(4) Nothing's wrong. Both are true. The morality of the non-fiction, irl world is rarely black and white. Evil can be charismatic. (IDK about the style thing, but I wouldn't)
(5) What? I'm not hip to the lingo. I'm totally fine with acknowledging that the holocaust part of Nazism was evil, but the technological and military advancements they made were impressive. For a while there, it was Germany against everyone, it seemed, and Germany's tech was keeping up with all of them. We love to brag about how we beat them at the end, but it was at the end. German tech is still impressive.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That being said, and while I don't think you guys are dumb, I disagree with the bold.

...
Sorry I said you're intelligent..?
I said the people disagreeing with ong are presenting intelligent arguments. Whether or not they're "right" isn't what I'm saying.

"They're all the same, just with different window dressings." is not an intelligent take on religions. It's a cop out that avoids further inquiry. I think the root of it tends to be good intentions-- a desire to not be intolerant, but that doesn't make it intelligent.

I never said that, BTW.

If anything, I'm saying that discussing ong's position on Islam is an avoidable bit of nonsense. It comes up from time to time, and I admit I've had my go at him, but when I realized that he's trying to change my mind (and I his), and that he's not really open to changing his mind (me, neither), it just became a thing to acknowledge and move on.

We agree on some stuff, not everything. Talking about stuff we don't yet know we disagree on is fun. Talking about stuff we already know we disagree on isn't. For me.

Frankly, if you guys want to drop another 3 pages on this, that's fine.

[boost]

(5) What? I'm not hip to the lingo. I'm totally fine with acknowledging that the holocaust part of Nazism was evil, but the technological and military advancements they made were impressive. For a while there, it was Germany against everyone, it seemed, and Germany's tech was keeping up with all of them. We love to brag about how we beat them at the end, but it was at the end. German tech is still impressive.

Why are you carving up Nazism here? I can't imagine you'd do it outside of the context of this discussion. If I had just posted in the Randomness thread "Nazism is a bad set of ideas." I could be wrong, but I don't imagine you'd have responded with "well, yeah, but they had some great engineering achievements, and really was 1930's/40's Americanism better?

To be clear, I am not equating Nazism with Islam-- I'm going to the extreme to make the point that not all sets of ideas are equal, and that some are in fact worse. Sets of ideas are better or worse because they in fact do cause people to act. Hitler was charismatic. His charisma was a large driving force in infecting people with this perverse set of ideas.

I don't even want to convince you that Islam is a bad set of ideas, or worse than whatever-- I'm just concerned that people who I think are intelligent don't seem to think that memes have power, that they cause people to act.

[boost]

...
Sorry I said you're intelligent..?
I said the people disagreeing with ong are presenting intelligent arguments. Whether or not they're "right" isn't what I'm saying.


I never said that, BTW.

If anything, I'm saying that discussing ong's position on Islam is an avoidable bit of nonsense. It comes up from time to time, and I admit I've had my go at him, but when I realized that he's trying to change my mind (and I his), and that he's not really open to changing his mind (me, neither), it just became a thing to acknowledge and move on.

We agree on some stuff, not everything. Talking about stuff we don't yet know we disagree on is fun. Talking about stuff we already know we disagree on isn't. For me.

Frankly, if you guys want to drop another 3 pages on this, that's fine.

Again, great post. It takes a lot to recognize these sorts of no wins-- as you can see I still have a lot of trouble resisting the urge to argue, but I'm trying to work towards this sort of ability to give it a rest. Also, the bolded warms my cynical heart.

[CoccoBill]

You both have valid points. How about this: all set-in-stone belief systems are bad. If someone's morals and world view aren't open to adjustment due to new information, trouble will ensue. We could probably in some sense rank the current belief systems based on their beneficiality and/or evilness, but that ought to be done based on their scripture, not on their merits. If not, we are not judging the system, we are judging populations affected by various other parameters, such as culture, resources, poverty, geopolitics etc. On the other hand, the members of those belief systems should be judged based on their own individual merit, not on their belief systems, for the exact same reason.

While I agree not all belief systems are equal, and they can probably be graded at least subjectively, I also think this is not very constructive since it's most likely offensive to pretty much all members of all belief systems, we are not judging the belief systems, we are judging the populations (more or less) adhering to them, and all of them are bad anyway. Except of course Scientism.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I heard a quote the other day, and it's speculative, but whatever.

Paraphrasing:
If we burned every book ever written, if we destroyed all the accumulated knowledge of all humans... given enough time, all the math and science books would be back exactly the same. None of the religious books would.

Clearly not a testable hypothesis, but still... it appeals to my sensibilities directly.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, tell us something we don't know.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Out of curiosity, should this be labeled as NSFW due to how viscerally excited I'm about to be?

OMG too late.

I need to change my undies after the first 2:00.

[Poopadoop]

You're a better man than me; I'd already shot my first one by 0:30.

[OngBonga]

It's the idea that everyone who belongs to that religion is by default dangerous until proven otherwise and shouldn't be allowed to emigrate here

Instead of thinking Islam, think Satanism. Is your position still the same? Are you cool with a foreign Satanist coming to live here?

I know I keep mentioning Satanism and Scientology, that's because you keep ignoring it. But tell me... what's the difference?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Have you met any Satanists? They're pretty chill.
If they're breaking laws, then that's the problem. If they just run around in goth clothes and are generally sad, then that's fine. Great, even.

If they like to stand on tables in public places with a stigmata in red ink on their wrists, then that's a risk they're taking. If they get assaulted for doing so, I've never heard one cry religious persecution, which it clearly is.
Melodramatic bunch, sure, but pretty chill.

I've seen that stuff. If you laugh at how ridiculous the injection of that imagery is in any modern context, they're likely to smile back at you.


BTW, have you read the Satanic Bible? If not, you should. I bet it's nothing at all like what you think it is.
It's basically a manifesto that says, "Look. People everywhere want to control you. One of the ways they try to do so is by fabricating a morality system and using it to shame you into behaving differently. The truth is that their morality system is a cartoon, some made-up BS that may or may not have any relevance to your life. The truth is that you know what is right and wrong, good and bad, without being told. There's a learning process for everyone, and mistakes will be made, but it's much better for everyone involved if we follow our own inner sense of morality than to blindly follow someone else's."

[OngBonga]

Ok, let me rephrase the question.

Do you guys believe that Satanists and Scientologists deserve the same protection from discrimination as Muslims? Is it ok for a nation to say "nope" to a Satanist purely because he is a Satanist?

I mean, I've already said we should be allowed to refuse entry to anyone foreign for any reason at all, but that's me.

have you read the Satanic Bible? If not, you should.

No thanks. Nor am I going to read the Koran, or the Bible.

[Poopadoop]

Instead of thinking Islam, think Satanism. Is your position still the same? Are you cool with a foreign Satanist coming to live here?

I know I keep mentioning Satanism and Scientology, that's because you keep ignoring it. But tell me... what's the difference?

I'm actually more bothered by anti-vaccers that either of those groups. And I think they're more of a threat to the public good. Can we consider them a religion and ban them?

And I admit I haven't read up on Scientology, I just know it's retarded and hence unlikely to take off outside of idiots like Tom Cruise or w/e.

Regarding Satanists, I have a student who is a 'witch'. She dresses in black and does hocus pocus shit with her friends. Once a bunch of them were out in a local park standing around in a pentagram chanting shit. Some guy came along with his dog and freaked out thinking they were preparing to sacrifice a squirrel or something. But they were just goofing around basically. So no, they don't scare me.

[Poopadoop]

Ok, let me rephrase the question.

Is it ok for a nation to say "nope" to a Satanist purely because he is a Satanist?

No, thought crimes are not a reason for banning an immigrant. Actions count, not whether someone calls themselves this or that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

[OngBonga]

I couldn't give a fuck about anti-vaxers. I mean, assuming they keep their views to themselves and don't pretend they know more than doctors. What right have you or I got to enforce vaccines on anyone? It's a bit fucking intrusive.

[OngBonga]

No, thought crimes are not a reason for banning an immigrant.

Any reason is good enough for me. Subscribing to a religion that is in stark contrast to our values is a good reason, rather than just any reason.

[OngBonga]

I just know it's retarded

RACIST

Sorry I couldn't stop myself.

[Poopadoop]

BTW, have you read the Satanic Bible?

I'm guessing he hasn't. More likely he's going with what he hears from Quora or some other reputable source of anecdotal non-evidence.

If not, you should. I bet it's nothing at all like what you think it is.

Careful, you're getting dangerously close to asking him to open his mind here.

It's basically a manifesto that says, "Look. People everywhere want to control you. One of the ways they try to do so is by fabricating a morality system and using it to shame you into behaving differently. The truth is that their morality system is a cartoon, some made-up BS that may or may not have any relevance to your life. The truth is that you know what is right and wrong, good and bad, without being told. There's a learning process for everyone, and mistakes will be made, but it's much better for everyone involved if we follow our own inner sense of morality than to blindly follow someone else's."

See, I did not know this. But it doesn't surprise me to learn the religion is not actually about worshipping Beelzebub.

[Poopadoop]

I couldn't give a fuck about anti-vaxers. I mean, assuming they keep their views to themselves and don't pretend they know more than doctors. What right have you or I got to enforce vaccines on anyone? It's a bit fucking intrusive.

But you're ok with enforcing our value systems on others, as in if they don't conform they can't live here.

My view is if they aren't bothering me or other people then let them pray all they want to whoever they want. The thing with anti-vaccers is the effectiveness of a vaccine depends on there being large enough proportion of the population getting it. And the a-v's kids don't get to decide if their parent is going to risk their life because they're ignorant. That's my problem with that. There are actual victims of this kind of stupidity.

[Poopadoop]

DvODUegUUAAXY2R.jpg

[OngBonga]

I'm guessing he hasn't. More likely he's going with what he hears from Quora or some other reputable source of anecdotal non-evidence.

I actually couldn't give a flying fuck about Satanism, and if Islam had the same numbers, I wouldn't give a fuck about that either. I only bring it up because it's clearly in stark contrast to Christianity, which is the dominant religion in both UK and USA, therefore our nations have what could be considered Christian values.

[Poopadoop]

RACIST

Sorry I couldn't stop myself.

Guilty. I'm prejudiced against stupid people.

[OngBonga]

But you're ok with enforcing our value systems on others...

Why the fuck else do they want to move here?

[OngBonga]

Guilty. I'm prejudiced against stupid people.

I'm prejudiced against people who oppress women and gays.

[Poopadoop]

I actually couldn't give a flying fuck about Satanism, and if Islam had the same numbers, I wouldn't give a fuck about that either. I only bring it up because it's clearly in stark contrast to Christianity, which is the dominant religion in both UK and USA, therefore our nations have what could be considered Christian values.

But if they live here, they have to live under our laws, which encapsulate those Christian values. I'm pretty sure they get told that at Heathrow before they get let loose to find the nearest infidel to chop off their hands.

[OngBonga]

As for anti-vaxers... I'm not going to defend people who refuse to vaccinate their children. That's putting your children at risk because of paranoia.

But an adult can do as he pleases to his own body, whether that be refuse a vaccine for any reason, smoke, drink paint, whatever.

[OngBonga]

But if they live here, they have to live under our laws.

Yeah. This is where we disagree about whether or not Sharia is an active system of law in the UK.

[Poopadoop]

I'm prejudiced against people who oppress women and gays.

So am I. I just don't see those as fundamental requirements to being a Muslim.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah. This is where we disagree about whether or not Sharia is an active system of law in the UK.

Where I grew up there was a large population of Mormons, like 10% of the total population was Mormon. They had their own code of conduct which meant they weren't allowed to drink, swear, or take any drugs (including caffeine). So this was a form of Sharia Law if you will. Their values also conflicted with Christian values of individual freedom, as exemplified in the law (e.g., it's not against the law to drink coffee). But since their 'laws' only applied to Mormons, you know what? I didn't care one bit.

When a Muslim comes around and starts telling me I need to read the Koran and pray five times a day towards Mecca, I'll get on your bandwagon.

[OngBonga]

Why the fuck else do they want to move here?

You skipped this. This is an extremely important point.


We shouldn't be welcoming just anybody into our country. We should welcome those who want to come here because they like the UK, they respect what it stands for. We should want immigrants to love the UK before they even get here.


I wouldn't dream of moving anywhere else in the world unless I liked that country. I'd move to Iceland or Japan. And if I moved there, I'd learn the language, and integrate with the native population. I would absorb myself in their culture. That's precisely why I want to go there, not USA.

Why shouldn't we expect that from immigrants?

[Poopadoop]

Why the fuck else do they want to move here?

Are you joking?

[OngBonga]

But since their 'laws' only applied to Mormons, you know what? I didn't care one bit.

I'll bet if you started to actually dig around, you'd find cause for outrage. Mormons are cunts.

But with regard to Sharia in UK... that's not something I'm comfortable with. Why? Because it discriminates against women. If Mormon law also discriminates against women, then I would not accept that either. If their law is compatible with our law, then fair enough. Sharia is not compatible with our laws.

[Poopadoop]

We shouldn't be welcoming just anybody into our country.

No-one said we should.

We should welcome those who want to come here because they like the UK, they respect what it stands for.

That's not why most people emigrate. Work, family, avoiding bad conditions in the home country, etc., are the main reasons to emigrate.

We should want immigrants to love the UK before they even get here.

We'd have no immigrants in that case. You have to be pretty ignorant of history to think the UK is loved and respected around the world.

I wouldn't dream of moving anywhere else in the world unless I liked that country. I'd move to Iceland or Japan. And if I moved there, I'd learn the language, and integrate with the native population. I would absorb myself in their culture. That's precisely why I want to go there, not USA.

Why shouldn't we expect that from immigrants?

You're assuming all other things being equal here. E.g., you have no family in one or another place, no friends, the same jobs are available, etc.

[OngBonga]

Are you joking?

Well, answer it. Or shall I answer for you?

Because their country is shit and ours isn't.

[OngBonga]

We'd have no immigrants in that case. You have to be pretty ignorant of history to think the UK is loved and respected around the world.

Naive.

Also, if someone doesn't respect the UK, then don't fucking come to the UK.

How is that even remotely prejudiced or immoral?

Anyone who hates the UK can fuck right off to somewhere that isn't the UK.

[Poopadoop]

I'll bet if you started to actually dig around, you'd find cause for outrage. Mormons are cunts.

Dig around where?

I can tell you first hand the mormons where i grew up were not doing anything illegal or even immoral. The worst thing they did was visit your house and try to convert you once in a while. You'd tell them to fuck off and they'd be like 'okaly dokaly' and off they went.

But with regard to Sharia in UK... that's not something I'm comfortable with. Why? Because it discriminates against women. If Mormon law also discriminates against women, then I would not accept that either. If their law is compatible with our law, then fair enough. Sharia is not compatible with our laws.

If a Muslim woman in the UK wants to renounce her religion, there's no stopping her.

[Poopadoop]

Naive.

Pot kettle black.

Go around the world and ask people what they think of the UK (or at the least the English). You're not all you think you are mate.

Also, if someone doesn't respect the UK, then don't fucking come to the UK.

How is that even remotely prejudiced or immoral?

Anyone who hates the UK can fuck right off to somewhere that isn't the UK.

Well of course they shouldn't come here if they hate it. But they don't have to love it do they? Why? You want peaceful productive citizens. What do you care if they tear up when they hear God Save the Queen? And if they weren't born here, why would they?

[OngBonga]

If a Muslim woman in the UK wants to renounce her religion, there's no stopping her.

Yeah, that's true in law but in practice, have you heard of honour killings? Even in the UK, an Islamic woman would be in great fear if she were to renounce Islam.

[OngBonga]

Go around the world and ask people what they think of the UK (or at the least the English). You're not all you think you are mate.

Many think we're cunts. Many think we were once the greatest nation that ever existed.

Ask the Chinese. Or the Japanese. Or even the Indians. You'll get a mixed bag in India, but a LOT of Indians respect the British, despite the fact we colonised them.

[OngBonga]

But they don't to love it do they?

Yes.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The problem with anti-vaccers is primarily what poopy said. It doesn't work unless the population's ratio of vaccinated to non-vacced is above a minimum. So it's not about each person for themselves, it's about all of us working together to eradicate a disease.

The problem with anti-vaccers is secondarily that by reducing that ratio, it means there will be occasional cases of the disease. The problem is rarely for the person who isn't vaccinated by choice... it's for critical groups who can't get vaccinated or have otherwise compromised immune systems. It literally boils down to, for every person who chooses not to get a vaccine, some % of people who otherwise wouldn't have died will die. Like a radiation event. We know the rates are higher, but we can't pinpoint which of the cases is due to the increase.


The tragedy of it all is that almost every reason a person has for choosing not to get a vaccine for themselves or their children is based on lies and misinformation. Based on shit that stopped being true almost 50 years ago, or was never true to begin with.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, that's true in law but in practice, have you heard of honour killings? Even in the UK, an Islamic woman would be in great fear if she were to renounce Islam.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/409135...ing-murder-uk/

12 honour killings a year in the UK. Not exactly an epidemic. How many innocent people get killed by drunk drivers? I'm guessing it's in the thousands. How many of those drunk drivers are Muslim? I'm guessing it's less than 1%.

[OngBonga]

But they don't to love it do they? Why?

Why? Because those who do are more desirable than those who don't. It's quite simple really. How is it not obvious that it would be of more benefit to us to have only those who love the UK?

I'm using the word "love" here casually. Like, respect the culture, not necessarily the history. I don't exactly admire wartime Japanese history, but I love their culture.

[Poopadoop]

Yes.

Well I only like it so I guess I have to go now. Thanks for letting me stay this long supporting you with my taxes.

[OngBonga]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/409135...ing-murder-uk/

12 honour killings a year in the UK. Not exactly an epidemic. How many innocent people get killed by drunk drivers? I'm guessing it's in the thousands. How many of those drunk drivers are Muslim? I'm guessing it's less than 1%.

This is probably the only good point you can have me acknowledge when it comes to Muslims.

Although, the 12 honour killings is obviously 12 too many. It's enough that any Muslim girl would fear renouncing, and they would almost certainly have to abandon their family.

[Poopadoop]

Why? Because those who do are more desirable than those who don't. It's quite simple really. How is it not obvious that it would be of more benefit to us to have only those who love the UK?

But it's a dumb requirement. It works up to the point where you stop anyone who actively hates your country from emigrating here, because they're likely to do more harm than good. After that, it's just jingoistic and impractical.

You're effectively saying "You there who loves the UK and wears a union jack on your lapel, rapist-murderer? Coool come on in. Hey you over there who thinks the UK is meh but is otherwise a saint? Fuck off."

[OngBonga]

Well I only like it so I guess I have to go now. Thanks for letting me stay this long supporting you with my taxes.

You like the British culture. You must. Canada is better than the UK, I have no idea why you'd rather be here, but you are. So obviously you like it.

I don't have a problem with Canadians, why would I? You're not batshit, you have basically the same laws as we do, you respect women, you work hard, you speak English. Everything about you is desirable, in terms of what we'd look for in an immigrant.

You said yourself we don't have to let just anyone in. So why can't we choose people like you, instead of Muslims?

[Poopadoop]

This is probably the only good point you can have me acknowledge when it comes to Muslims.

Although, the 12 honour killings is obviously 12 too many. It's enough that any Muslim girl would fear renouncing, and they would almost certainly have to abandon their family.

Yeah their culture has its problems, I agree. But as you acknowledge so does ours. You can add to the deaths caused by alcohol the number of manhours spent in A&E tending to people who've fallen down some steps drunk or w/e, and the costs of treating liver disease, etc.

[Poopadoop]

You like the British culture. You must. Canada is better than the UK, I have no idea why you'd rather be here, but you are. So obviously you like it.

I got offered a job here and not in Canada. That's why I'm here.

You said yourself we don't have to let just anyone in. So why can't we choose people like you, instead of Muslims?

I'm not sure what the economic arguments are. People from poorer countries tend to accept lower wages and do shitty jobs. I doubt many people would come from countries like Canada to work in a shitty job without some other incentive like family. May as well stay home and have a shitty job.

[OngBonga]

Of course our culture has its problems. But it's out culture. The people who are from here, cunts and all, have a right to be here, and no right to be anywhere else.

[Poopadoop]

Oh man, this is an example of a so-called honour killing?

Mum-of-three Rania Alayed, 25, was killed by her husband and buried in a suitcase close to the A19 in North Yorkshire in 2013. Ahmed Al-Khatib was jailed for a minimum of 20 years after court heard he subjected her to years of abuse believing she was becoming too Westernised. Syrian Rania had fled her home with her children but Al-Khatib lured her to a Greater Manchester flat.

Basically this guy was just a controlling cunt.

[OngBonga]

I'm not sure what the economic arguments are. People from poorer countries tend to accept lower wages and do shitty jobs. I doubt many people would come from countries like Canada to work in a shitty job without some other incentive like family. May as well stay home and have a shitty job.

Well the Poles like us and they'll do the shitty jobs for low wages.

[OngBonga]

Basically this guy was just a controlling cunt.

Islamic fathers and husbands tend to be controlling. Not to this level, but they control, that is their role.

[Poopadoop]

Of course our culture has its problems. But it's out culture. The people who are from here, cunts and all, have a right to be here, and no right to be anywhere else.

No-one is saying they do anymore than they have a right to drive a car. But if they meet certain requirements they should be allowed to. We just disagree on what those requirements should be.

[OngBonga]

Oh man, this is an example of a so-called honour killing?

This is much more widespread in Islamic countries. Much. Here, they at least fear the law.

[Poopadoop]

This is much more widespread in Islamic countries. Much. Here, they at least fear the law.

The article said 5000 a year across the world. Out of 1.5 bn Muslims, that's not an epidemic either, or at least not on the level of drunk drivers killing people.

Also, I'm pretty sure honour killing is illegal in most if not all Muslim countries.

Also, there are honour killings in India done by Hindus. Should we ban them too?

[Poopadoop]

Another fun fact for you: Iran has the death penalty for rape. Seems they're more concerned with womens' rights than some give them credit for.

[boost]

I actually couldn't give a flying fuck about Satanism, and if Islam had the same numbers, I wouldn't give a fuck about that either. I only bring it up because it's clearly in stark contrast to Christianity, which is the dominant religion in both UK and USA, therefore our nations have what could be considered Christian values.

God damn it... you were kinda on the right track, but this is just off the rails.

I won't speak for Britain, but I imagine it's somewhat similar-- the US has cosmopolitan values that are rooted in both founding figure's religious persecution and our own less than great history of intolerance. The fact that we have a majority Christian population does not mean non Christian values are antithetical to American values. The important values to worry about are freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, separation of church and state, equal treatment under the law. These are not Christian values, they're modern western values.

Kindly keep your foot out of your mouth while we are unfortunately stuck in the same foxhole.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Of course our culture has its problems. But it's out culture. The people who are from here, cunts and all, have a right to be here, and no right to be anywhere else.

Why is culture so important to you?
Is your notion that culture is static over time?

Why do you feel like the culture you are familiar with is something you're entitled to forever?

[Poopadoop]

Why is culture so important to you?
Is your notion that culture is static over time?

Why do you feel like the culture you are familiar with is something you're entitled to forever?

Yeah, either accept that culture is dynamic or go back to Anglony-Saxony you foreign cunt.

[Poopadoop]

Burnt.

[OngBonga]

Why is culture so important to you?
Is your notion that culture is static over time?

Why do you feel like the culture you are familiar with is something you're entitled to forever?

This is really a very poor argument when it comes to accepting Islam. You're not asking my culture to evolve over time, you're asking my culture to absorb another culture, one that isn't very compatible.

If you asked an Islamic country to disregard their culture, that would be considered pretty offensive by some. Hey Afghanistan, why are you afraid of churches and bare ankles? I want to come and live there, despite me not particularly liking your country or your people. Why? Economics, it's just that it makes my life better. Fuck everyone who already lives there, this is about me.

It's like you guys think that culture is something we should be ashamed of,rather than proud. Best thing is, I'm not even particularly proud of our culture, but it's the only one we have.

Yes of course it changes over time. Usually for the better, in the sense we tend to abandon the shitty aspects of it, like racism, sexism and homophobia. Of course these are still problems in the UK, but not on the same scale they were,and the law is constantly evolving to protect minorities. So don't patronise me about how culture evolves. I'm not afraid of that. I just want it to keep getting better.

Kindly keep your foot out of your mouth while we are unfortunately stuck in the same foxhole.

Modern western values evolved from Christian values. You don't need to be this pedantic with me just because we're awkwardly on the same side of the fence on this matter.

[oskar]

What are you doing to preserve your culture?

[oskar]

There were so many great moments yesterday. This was one of my favorites:

https://youtu.be/Z4C86H94Z2g?t=155

Someone had to have had the idea to do this, then made an intern do the graphic, go to a print shop, have the print shop guy ask: what is this for, a rally or something? And then the intern has to go: No, it's for congress actually. We'll put that up in congress. - And then you put that up in congress and all your republican friends go: this makes our point so well, we won't have to ask a single question for the next seven hours!

[OngBonga]

What are you doing to preserve your culture?

Watch football and cricket, drink cider, and treat women and gays as equals. I'm doing my bit.

[Poopadoop]

There were so many great moments yesterday. This was one of my favorites:

+1

Every time I think the Fake Reality Star Conman President show can't get any better, it does.

Today, Trump told reporters that Kim told him he didn't know anything about what happened to that American student who came back in a coma, and he believed him.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is really a very poor argument when it comes to accepting Islam. You're not asking my culture to evolve over time, you're asking my culture to absorb another culture, one that isn't very compatible.[...]

Who said anything about Islam? I'm not talking about Islam. I understand your views on Islam.
(FWIW, I don't read any of this as people trying to get you to "accept Islam," they're only suggesting to treat criminals like criminals and non-criminals like non-criminals.)
I never asked your culture to evolve or absorb anything. I'm only citing that it has, as the Anglo-Saxon comment made blatantly clear, but even Brexit is a perfect example that your culture evolves and absorbs - or whatever the opposite of absorb is.

You say your opposition to Islam has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with culture. Let's strip the religion from the conversation, then. If it's not about religion, then let's move away from the triggers and trappings of that language.


I get "that" you are attached to your sense of culture, and that it's important to you.
I don't get "why" you are so attached, and I don't get exactly what it is you mean when you talk about culture.

Can you answer the quations again in this context?


Why is culture so important to you?
Is your notion that culture is static over time?

Why do you feel like the culture you are familiar with is something you're entitled to forever?

[OngBonga]

Why is culture such an alien concept to you?

Culture is language, law, arts, architecture, regional accents, cricket, tea, dickheads shaming the country at football events, terrible food, complaining about the weather... it's also a sense of respect for women, acceptance of gays, and respect for other cultures... so long as those cultures don't stand in stark contrast to our values, at least.

You say your opposition to Islam has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with culture.

I said that? Or did you assume that? It's both. I am no fan of any religion. I tolerate Christianity more than others because that's the majority religion of British people. Also, I like churches, from an architecture pov, there's one nearby that predates Norman times (which began 1066). Christianity is a very deep part of our history and culture. I have to respect that.

I don't have to respect Islam.

[OngBonga]

Why do you feel like the culture you are familiar with is something you're entitled to forever?

It's not something I feel "entitled" to forever. If I move to Japan, I'm no longer "entitled" to British culture. I'm "entitled" to Japanese culture.

Culture is not an entitlement. It's what defines a nation of people.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There were so many great moments yesterday. This was one of my favorites:

https://youtu.be/Z4C86H94Z2g?t=155

Someone had to have had the idea to do this, then made an intern do the graphic, go to a print shop, have the print shop guy ask: what is this for, a rally or something? And then the intern has to go: No, it's for congress actually. We'll put that up in congress. - And then you put that up in congress and all your republican friends go: this makes our point so well, we won't have to ask a single question for the next seven hours!

As if any one of them got into office without lying.
As if any human doesn't lie sometimes.

If that's all you got, then you got nothing. The fact that a person has lied doesn't mean they are evermore incapable of telling the truth.

I hope I get a chance to review the documents he submitted today.