Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Parsifal]

Immigration is not a viable way to solve a problem like Syria. Everyone can't immigrate and if the most resourceful manage to leave it just makes it more of a hell hole for those who have no option but to stay. The solution is to halt the violence. That should be possible becaus the killing is mainly done by western air campaigns or advanced weapons put into the hands of various combatants who are mainly interested in slaughtering their adversaries. There lots of blame to go around, from Putin's support of an inhuman tyrant to Obama's half baked support for insurgent groups who are as likely to fight each other as the regime.

For any country immigration is used to enhance the fortunes of the destination country, not to solve the problems of other countries. In the US, for instance, immigration has allowed the US to become a technology superpower despite having a failing education system and among the lowest performing students in the developed world. How else could a country full of the likes of snyprrr produce the iPhone?

[(poco) Sforzando]

How else could a country full of the likes of snyppr produce the iPhone?

It's snyprrr.

[Parsifal]

It's snyprrr.

An inexcusable error, corrected.

[zamyrabyrd]

There's a distance you won't travel. Tolerate them, associate in some common activities, but not mingle with them, let alone welcome the differences you note, unless they intersect with some of your own values. I can certainly understand that. It takes time, which means probably more than a generation, for differences to eventually become just another fact of life...

This is the kind of problems we are faced with: not a question whether to welcome refugees (or other immigrants) or not - we have passed that post some time ago, especially in Quebec (because of the 1977 language laws), but how will we financially address the challenge. Every society is faced with the kind of financial problems an immigrant influx brings at one time or another, but the face we put on and how we attempt to solve the issues (positively or negatively, alla Trump) makes all the difference for future generations. My granddaughter has never given a thought to the idea that Turia's chilldren (and many others) were somehow different from her. Yes, they will be raised as Muslims. But I fancy the idea that they will be our Muslims. Not djihadists, drug dealers or rapists.

First of all, I don't know who the "you" is, unless it is a rhetorical one. Surely it doesn't apply to me, although I prefer not to go into detail here.

There is a question of "identity" that other waves of immigration to the North American continent didn't have to face, because immigrants were supposed to assimilate. In other words, the identity of the host country didn't have to be challenged and stretched to the point to that it was threatened by hostile elements it welcomed. Please apply this to Europe.

I believe the burden is on the immigrants FIRST to show that they accept this principle without compromise: "our country". One limiting factor is that of tribe over country. Ignorance of this concept has caused untold damage for at least 100 years when Europeans thought they could draw lines in the sand and create nation states that cut into tribal loyalties. This is not only familial but religious. Will these immigrants accept libertarian, civil values over a literal interpretation of their Holy Book? It doesn't have to be a majority who refuse, only a lunatic fringe with some knowledge of bombs and guns. Even .1% is too much, however. Why should one person from a host country have to die?

Then there is the problem of reciprocity. Can one even bring in a Bible to Saudi Arabia, let alone build churches (there aren't any). The Saudis are known for their subsidizing mosques all over the West. They could spend some of their money on refugees. Why aren't they taking them in? Of course, if the Christian world (that has some history of showing compassion for the weak and oppressed) is willing to foot the bill, then let them!

We may like to have others see the world as we do but this can lead to disaster. I won't even go into the skewed notion of "bringing freedom" to their home countries. The intellectual and cultural gap is a huge one, I assure you.

[The new erato]

Then there is the problem of reciprocity. Can one even bring in a Bible to Saudi Arabia, let alone build churches (there aren't any). The Saudis are known for their subsidizing mosques all over the West. They could spend some of their money on refugees. Why aren't they taking them in?

The western worlds tolerance and even support for the tyrannic, messianic (in the sense of promoting their religion) and terrorsubsidizing Saudi regime is the elephant in the room nobody seems to be talking about.

[Madiel]

I believe the burden is on the immigrants FIRST to show that they accept this principle without compromise: "our country". One limiting factor is that of tribe over country. Ignorance of this concept has caused untold damage for at least 100 years when Europeans thought they could draw lines in the sand and create nation states that cut into tribal loyalties. This is not only familial but religious. Will these immigrants accept libertarian, civil values over a literal interpretation of their Holy Book? It doesn't have to be a majority who refuse, only a lunatic fringe with some knowledge of bombs and guns. Even .1% is too much, however. Why should one person from a host country have to die?

When the number of murders committed by native-born Americans is zero, then I'll accept the proposition that one murder committed by immigrants is one murder too many. Don't hold them to a standard you're not meeting yourselves.

PS There's an excellent chart doing the rounds showing how many Americans are killed each year by various causes. Religious-inspired terrorism is way, way down the list. It is of course beaten by guns, but also by armed toddlers, lightning, lawnmowers, being hit by a bus and falling out of bed.

[zamyrabyrd]

When the number of murders committed by native-born Americans is zero, then I'll accept the proposition that one murder committed by immigrants is one murder too many. Don't hold them to a standard you're not meeting yourselves. PS There's an excellent chart doing the rounds showing how many Americans are killed each year by various causes. Religious-inspired terrorism is way, way down the list. It is of course beaten by guns, but also by armed toddlers, lightning, lawnmowers, being hit by a bus and falling out of bed.

Murder inspired by ideology is a different ball game. Like certain kinds of diseases made preventable by antibiotics, so these horrors can and should be nipped in the bud. Barring that, one can have your Russian Roulette attitude towards the Black Plague as well.
And, BTW, the 15th anniversary of 9/11 falls on a Sunday this year...
("I say yes, you say no, I say why and you say I don't know-oh...)

[Madiel]

Murder inspired by ideology is a different ball game. Like certain kinds of diseases made preventable by antibiotics, so these horrors can and should be nipped in the bud. Barring that, one can have your Russian Roulette attitude towards the Black Plague as well.
And, BTW, the 15th anniversary of 9/11 falls on a Sunday this year...
("I say yes, you say no, I say why and you say I don't know-oh...)

By the way, 9/11 was 15 years ago. Is that really your touchstone for the present state of the world? Have you heard of iPhones, for example?

I don't know why murder "inspired by ideology" seems to be in your mind equated with religious ideology, and why the "ideology" that makes it acceptable in many American minds to solve their problems with guns and other forms of violence gets a free pass.

Why can't 10,000 gun deaths every year be "nipped in the bud"?

Why are you focusing on a problem that is 1,000 times less deadly and focusing your attention on how to prevent it, while shrugging your shoulders and thinking that massive numbers of "normal" Americans killing either other Americans or themselves (gun suicides are actually even higher) is just one of those things, that it's relatively normal?

It's not, you know. It's deeply abnormal, with a rate of death that is massively higher than comparable countries. There's good hard science that shows the measures that could cause a significant reduction in deaths (including all the evidence that shows removing access to guns does reduce the suicide rate, i.e. people don't just choose another method of death).

But no, apparently that's not the "preventable" kind of death. The preventable kind, the different ball game, is the headline-grabbing proposition that nasty people are coming overseas to change the American way of life.

Well sorry, but the American way of life is in serious need of being changed. I wouldn't live in America, not because I think there's a heightened risk of Islamic terrorists but because I know the likelihood of me being gunned down by a "normal" American is massively higher than the risk of me ever being murdered here, regardless of the skin colour or religion of the perpetrator.

[Madiel]

None of that means, of course, that there shouldn't be counterterrorism. None of that means I'm proposing Russian Roulette either.  I'm just trying to point out the relative risk and how you're carrying on about a small problem being "preventable" and a "different ball game" while living in the most murderous country in the developed world.

"You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." Matthew 23:24

[North Star]

Murder inspired by ideology is a different ball game. Like certain kinds of diseases made preventable by antibiotics, so these horrors can and should be nipped in the bud. Barring that, one can have your Russian Roulette attitude towards the Black Plague as well.
And, BTW, the 15th anniversary of 9/11 falls on a Sunday this year...
("I say yes, you say no, I say why and you say I don't know-oh...)

Oh, you're talking about things like the Planned Parenthood shooting?

[zamyrabyrd]

Oh, you're talking about things like the Planned Parenthood shooting?

Are you talking about mass murder of innocents?

[North Star]

Are you talking about mass murder of innocents?

Are you justifying a terrorist attack resulting in the death of a police officer and two civilians, just because the attacker agrees with you on an issue?

[zamyrabyrd]

By the way, 9/11 was 15 years ago. Is that really your touchstone for the present state of the world? Have you heard of iPhones, for example?

I don't know why murder "inspired by ideology" seems to be in your mind equated with religious ideology, and why the "ideology" that makes it acceptable in many American minds to solve their problems with guns and other forms of violence gets a free pass.

Why can't 10,000 gun deaths every year be "nipped in the bud"?

Why are you focusing on a problem that is 1,000 times less deadly and focusing your attention on how to prevent it, while shrugging your shoulders and thinking that massive numbers of "normal" Americans killing either other Americans or themselves (gun suicides are actually even higher) is just one of those things, that it's relatively normal?

It's not, you know. It's deeply abnormal, with a rate of death that is massively higher than comparable countries. There's good hard science that shows the measures that could cause a significant reduction in deaths (including all the evidence that shows removing access to guns does reduce the suicide rate, i.e. people don't just choose another method of death).

But no, apparently that's not the "preventable" kind of death. The preventable kind, the different ball game, is the headline-grabbing proposition that nasty people are coming overseas to change the American way of life.

Well sorry, but the American way of life is in serious need of being changed. I wouldn't live in America, not because I think there's a heightened risk of Islamic terrorists but because I know the likelihood of me being gunned down by a "normal" American is massively higher than the risk of me ever being murdered here, regardless of the skin colour or religion of the perpetrator.

You're making a false equivalency with gun murder and religious ideology inspired murder. Sorry, no cigar! No one is giving any kind of killing a free pass. But, you know what, anything I say, you're going to come down on. Can't figure out the reason why and don't want to bother either.

Terrorism happens EVERY DAY perpetrated by a certain group. Aussies go to Bali to have a good time. It was only in 2002 in which 202 people died, 88 of whom were from Australia (not counting maimed or blinded). According to your logic, what's in the past should stay there. Only except they get atrocities practically every year since then. Actually, Muslims are the more numerous victims in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq. Someone should stop and try to figure it out. It's not normal, or at least should not become so common so that we regard it as the new normal. You can rationalize it away, but I won't.

[zamyrabyrd]

Are you justifying a terrorist attack resulting in the death of a police officer and two civilians, just because the attacker agrees with you on an issue?

Of course not, how stupid!

[Madiel]

You're making a false equivalency with gun murder and religious ideology inspired murder.

And what, pray tell, is false about it?

Do you really think that the grieving family of a murder victim comfort each other by saying "well at least she wasn't killed by a Muslim"?

[zamyrabyrd]

And what, pray tell, is false about it?
Do you really think that the grieving family of a murder victim comfort each other by saying "well at least she wasn't killed by a Muslim"?

Another false equivalency. You might have well been comparing the price of eggs in Victoria or Brisbane. For some reason you have to be aggressively contrary to anything I say. Why don't you find someone else to pick on? I'm thru with u.

[Madiel]

And you still haven't told me what is false about the equivalency. What is not equivalent about 2 murders? What could possibly be a more important factor than the death?

I'm aggressively contrary to much of what you say because I think you say a lot of irredeemably stupid things and I think it's important you're held to account for them.

EDIT: I haven't the faintest clue what's wrong with comparing the price of eggs in two different locations, either. Although if you're attempting Australian examples you've compared a state with a city.

[zamyrabyrd]

And you still haven't told me what is false about the equivalency. What is not equivalent about 2 murders? What could possibly be a more important factor than the death?
I'm aggressively contrary to much of what you say because I think you say a lot of irredeemably stupid things and I think it's important you're held to account for them.
EDIT: I haven't the faintest clue what's wrong with comparing the price of eggs in two different locations, either. Although if you're attempting Australian examples you've compared a state with a city.

I didn't want to bother to answer you. If what I write is irredeemably stupid then it must be useless to try to argue with me. (It is also insulting to accuse another person thusly.)
Gun murder in the US is a problem although it doesn't directly affect me since I am not living there right now.
It has its own causes and hopefully, remedies. I personally think that the general breakdown in civil life has a lot to do with it. Terrorism is a global problem. Moslems also suffer from it. I neglected to mention Turkey as one of the target nations, also, of course, Thailand and the Phillipines. 
What happened in Nice is such a grotesque barbarity that transcends that of gangs shooting at one another. The problem is it was upstaged almost immediately by attacks on airports. (Actually it is hard to keep track.)
In fact, it seemed that there was a kind of news blackout, no stories or pictures of the victims. Making them personal would bring the issue home, not yesterday's statistics as you would prefer to characterize the horrific attack in New York 15 years ago. 

[Madiel]

If you want to make the people who died on 9/11 into individuals, then have the decency to do the same with the many more people murdered each year by other methods.

Oh, that's right. Not equivalent. I forgot.

It is not just me you don't bother answering. I'm losing count of the number of times you've dismissed the challenges of other forum members as well. Various phrases that tell people not to be so ridiculous, often with exclamation marks at the end. There's a general air of incomprehension that anyone could possibly disagree with you.

[André]

First of all, I don't know who the "you" is, unless it is a rhetorical one. Surely it doesn't apply to me, although I prefer not to go into detail here.

There is a question of "identity" that other waves of immigration to the North American continent didn't have to face, because immigrants were supposed to assimilate. In other words, the identity of the host country didn't have to be challenged and stretched to the point to that it was threatened by hostile elements it welcomed. Please apply this to Europe.

I believe the burden is on the immigrants FIRST to show that they accept this principle without compromise: "our country". One limiting factor is that of tribe over country. Ignorance of this concept has caused untold damage for at least 100 years when Europeans thought they could draw lines in the sand and create nation states that cut into tribal loyalties. This is not only familial but religious. Will these immigrants accept libertarian, civil values over a literal interpretation of their Holy Book? It doesn't have to be a majority who refuse, only a lunatic fringe with some knowledge of bombs and guns. Even .1% is too much, however. Why should one person from a host country have to die?

Then there is the problem of reciprocity. Can one even bring in a Bible to Saudi Arabia, let alone build churches (there aren't any). The Saudis are known for their subsidizing mosques all over the West. They could spend some of their money on refugees. Why aren't they taking them in? Of course, if the Christian world (that has some history of showing compassion for the weak and oppressed) is willing to foot the bill, then let them!

We may like to have others see the world as we do but this can lead to disaster. I won't even go into the skewed notion of "bringing freedom" to their home countries. The intellectual and cultural gap is a huge one, I assure you.

It was indeed a rhetorical "you". I include myself in that. My point is that the first thing you (we) notice is the difference. How one reacts to elements of difference is part and fabric of a community/society' s acceptance or rejection of differences.

The old argument about Rome and the Romans is just that: old and lame. Societies evolve in a continuum, not in closed circuit.