Support NeoGAF

[Kenshin001]

So far in this thread you've suggested that refugees from a war torn land with little resources to survive:

1.) Find another place, if they can get to Slovakia, they can surely get somewhere else. (as if these people have the luxury of fucking choosing).
2.) Drop their religion. You did it at age 10, why can't they, right?

Honestly this is some of the dumbest shit I have heard.

They can find another place. Most of the refugees are already in another place, Turkey or Lebanon. Many have a final destination in mind and move to the UK, France or Germany despite being told if they receive refugee status in one EU member state are meant to remain there.. One problem is none of the GCC countries have offered places for refugees despite having the money to house and feed them.

I didn't say drop their religion. You seem to have no idea what that conversation was about. It was equating being religious with being black, one is a choice, the other isn't.

 

[Condom]

So now what?

Does a country not have a right to discriminate in these matters? Should all borders be opened unconditionally?

Yes, it is discrimination. Now who are you to tell these people that they aren't allowed to discriminate? Will you allow Slovakia to decide upon the immigration policies of wherever you live?

Tell people that they don't have the right to control their own borders by all means. Just don't be surprised when they're driven into the arms of parties that will purport to offer said control.

I'm sorry Dave but this post is just weird

We should let them discriminate because else they will get people in power that will let them discriminate?

This shit has become far too mainstream, countries do NOT have the right to discriminate like this. If they still move that way then there should be a revolt against those dark powers. Rightwing extremism isn't something to be feared but something to be fought against.

 

[Laughing Banana]

So now what?

Does a country not have a right to discriminate in these matters? Should all borders be opened unconditionally?

Yes, it is discrimination. Now who are you to tell these people that they aren't allowed to discriminate? Will you allow Slovakia to decide upon the immigration policies of wherever you live?

Tell people that they don't have the right to control their own borders by all means. Just don't be surprised when they're driven into the arms of parties that will purport to offer said control.

So basically, "Tough luck to you guys eh?" *shrugs*, you said to the refugees as they are being repelled away through religious discrimination.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

that doesn't mean Isis view is legitimate, to them and you it is legitimate
[...]
Again, you have shown again and again that you view Isis view as so legitimate that you defend that view against the moderate view

Dude.... xD
It's like you haven't read a single thing he wrote.

yet Saudi Arabia and Iran punishes homosexuals for being homosexuals alone which alone makes them go against the values of the Quran and thus Islamic by name only not by character just like Isis are Muslims but their character is wholly unislamic

I hate to contribute to the derail further, but... really, you want to claim that Saudi Arabia and Iran are not "truly" Islamic?

 

[orochi91]

Gulf States continue to drop the ball hard throughout this crisis.

The humiliation and suffering these refugees have endured (and will continue to do so) is a tragedy.

All this has served to highlight a painful truth: There is no unity among the Muslim community, especially in the ME, and its prospects remain grim for the foreseeable future.

I don't know why Slovakia thinks it will be any easier integrating conservative Syrian Christians, given the massive cultural and linguistic divide, though I commend them for coming to the aid of their fellow Christians.

 

[sahest]

If I had my own dictatorship, I would require all immigrants to waive their right to publicly practice (any) religion, and failure to comply would lead to immediate eviction.

Religion is the source of so much hate and bigotry, from all sides. I cannot fathom why it is legal. Believe in what you want to believe in, but do it in private, and don't try to force your beliefs on anybody else.

So basically, "Tough luck to you guys eh?" *shrugs*, you said to the refugees as they are being repelled away through religious discrimination.

Sorry man, but in the real world you can't be Good Guy Dave all the time. It just doesn't work, no matter how good the intentions are.

I think every nation would like to help as many refugees as possible, but you have to think hard on the consequences. Helping 100K today is nice, but it's stupid if that harms 10 million in the long run.

Integration of muslims into European culture has proven to be nigh impossible, the cultures are just too different. Call me rascist all you want, it won't make any less true.

 

[Metroxed]

I don't know, the USA has a ton of stupid shit, but whenever I see this sort of shit I'm glad for the melting pot environment here.

The US and Canada have been founded by immigrants, built by immigrants and have been receiving constant immigration for a century (more than a century if we also count European-exclusive immigration), whereas some European countries have had the same ethnic groups living in more or less the same places for centuries and immigration has just started 20-30 years ago, in some countries it started in the last decade!

Just 40 years ago seeing a black person in Spain was a complete wonder. Now not so much, but it still is in some other countries, like the Slavic states.

Newsflash, many immigrants feels proud of their old country while appreciating their new place. I don't get this shit. They have to be dutch and act like "Europeans" for you to accept them?

Sorry, but without living here you cannot possibly understand how it is. It's not like Americans who say "yeah, I'm half Irish, and half German", but they're still Americans, speak English, etc. Immigrants to the US, for one reason or another, try hard to assimilate and "Americanize", so in the end it is a melting pot, everyone is from everywhere but most people share the same core values and develop patriotism for the country, etc.

That does not happen here, or has not happened yet because in most countries there are only one or at the very most two generations of immigrants, not more. They have not integrated, they speak almost exclusively their own languages and they don't interact with locals. So they become completely isolated groups and there's little interaction between them and us.

And yes, they probably have to assimilate and act and behave like everyone else for people to truly accept them, and it still will take a long time before people here can finally accept as Dutch/Basque/Pole/Dane/<you-name-it> someone who is from a different ethnicity. But I have already explained why is that, and it has little to do with racism or discrimination. See it this way: if I move to Japan and manage to get the citizenship, will that make me a Japanese? No, I will be a European with Japanese citizenship, but not a Japanese person. Because "Japanese people" refers to a very specific subset of people. That's how it works in the old world.

 

[BadHand]

So now what?

Does a country not have a right to discriminate in these matters? Should all borders be opened unconditionally?

Yes, it is discrimination. Now who are you to tell these people that they aren't allowed to discriminate? Will you allow Slovakia to decide upon the immigration policies of wherever you live?

Tell people that they don't have the right to control their own borders by all means. Just don't be surprised when they're driven into the arms of parties that will purport to offer said control.

There's a very good reason that discrimination should not be a factor in an asylum hearing.

The definition of "Refugee" in the 1951 Refugee Convention is:

...being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion...

Discrimination only adds the the problem asylum seekers are already facing and is a failure to apply international law equally.

 

[SmokyDave]

I know I've been quoted a lot but I'm just going to put one reply and hope it explains my position. It's not even 9am yet here, too early for pointless arguments.

I'm sorry Dave but this post is just weird

Yeah, it was a bit 'stream of consciousness'.

We should let them discriminate because else they will get people in power that will let them discriminate?

This shit has become far too mainstream, countries do NOT have the right to discriminate like this. If they still move that way then there should be a revolt against those dark powers. Rightwing extremism isn't something to be feared but something to be fought against.

Ultimately I'm of the opinion that Slovakia must put her present citizens first, above all else. If they truly believe that these refugees are a threat to community cohesion then they should not allow them in. Given the integration situation across much of Europe, I'm not going to say their fears are unfounded.

 

[Walshicus]

This shit has become far too mainstream, countries do NOT have the right to discriminate like this.

Sovereign governments have the 'right' to do whatever they please, accepting the consequences to relationships with other sovereign governments.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sovereign governments have the 'right' to do whatever they please, accepting the consequences to relationships with other sovereign governments.

I mean, they don't. Just obviously they don't have a moral right to do so [i.e. "why we disapprove of wars"], and they don't have a legal right to do so either - a state's sovereignty is at least partially predicated on other actors continuing to recognise that sovereignty, which they don't have to.

 

[Laughing Banana]

If I had my own dictatorship, I would require all immigrants to waive their right to publicly practice (any) religion, and failure to comply would lead to immediate eviction.

Religion is the source of so much hate and bigotry, from all sides. I cannot fathom why it is legal. Believe in what you want to believe in, but do it in private, and don't try to force your beliefs on anybody else.

So you say you hate bigotry but then proceeds to immediately acknowledge that given the chance you will welcome the chance to be a massive bigot to others.

I think every nation would like to help as many refugees as possible, but you have to think hard on the consequences. Helping 100K today is nice, but it's stupid if that harms 10 million in the long run.

Integration of muslims into European culture has proven to be nigh impossible, the cultures are just too different. Call me rascist all you want, it won't make any less true.

....it's just 200 people.

If Slovakia is a country that can collapse due to admittance of 200 people, then it has much bigger worries to think about.

...Well, at least you're being honest about yourself being a racist and a bigot.

Can't believe there are people in here who refused to help those who are fleeing from a humanitarian crisis just by the account of their religion of choice. I guess the fact that they are Muslims immediately disqualify them from any help that they may seek and that bigotry acts that are imposed upon them are acceptable. At least now I know people that I won't believe ever again if in some future I see them claiming that they are not a bigot.

 

[ElTorro]

If I had my own dictatorship, I would require all immigrants to waive their right to publicly practice (any) religion, and failure to comply would lead to immediate eviction.

Religion is the source of so much hate and bigotry, from all sides. I cannot fathom why it is legal. Believe in what you want to believe in, but do it in private, and don't try to force your beliefs on anybody else.

That's a terrible and ironic statement.

I believe that religion has nothing of value to offer to humanity that cannot be had without its false metaphysical, historical, and sometimes dangerous truth claims. But I would very much want people to realize it for themselves in an atmosphere of open, voluntary, and friendly discourse.

Do you really think that denying people their right to free speech in public spaces will do anything to change minds in the desired direction? On the contrary, such despicable efforts only strengthen radicals and are against liberal values. I don't want my country to act like a dogmatic dictatorship. There are enough shit holes on the planet where I could move to if that's what I wanted.

 

[Walpurgis]

The US and Canada have been founded by immigrants, built by immigrants and have been receiving constant immigration for a century (more than a century if we also count European-exclusive immigration), whereas some European countries have had the same ethnic groups living in more or less the same places for centuries and immigration has just started 20-30 years ago, in some countries it started in the last decade!

Just 40 years ago seeing a black person in Spain was a complete wonder. Now not so much, but it still is in some other countries, like the Slavic states.

Canada was "founded" by European immigrants and received immigration from western European countries for years. They eventually let in eastern Europeans as well. Non-Europeans were only really allowed in in the 1970s. Before that, black people, for example, were strictly prohibited from entering. So 40 years ago, a black person in Canada was also a complete wonder.

 

[Moral Panic]

So now what?

Does a country not have a right to discriminate in these matters? Should all borders be opened unconditionally?

Yes, it is discrimination. Now who are you to tell these people that they aren't allowed to discriminate? Will you allow Slovakia to decide upon the immigration policies of wherever you live?

Tell people that they don't have the right to control their own borders by all means. Just don't be surprised when they're driven into the arms of parties that will purport to offer said control.

Now what? We condemn abhorrent behaviour no matter what county it is coming from, that's what. You do realise you are using the same argumentations that say we cannot complain when Saudi Arabia mistreats it's people, right? Who am I to tell them that they shouldn't discriminate in this way? I am a person with a goddamn working conscience thats who.

Are you seriously arguing that it is an acceptable thing to discriminate in this way? 200 people is all they are being asked to take. 200 PEOPLE, you don't get to choose only the white ones or the pretty ones or the Christian ones. You take the people in need.

 

[Sapphire Dreams]

It's being defended by plenty. We get the usual "you're racist if you criticize Islam" posts. Which again is wrong because Islam is a religion that spans from Indonesia to Albania.

I found it interesting that you, Rusty, Terra, manimthemirror etc. skipped this post:






Have Saudi Arabia or Kuwait provided "education and health care" for Christians or Shia? Plenty of money and room going around in Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait etc. to provide shelter to these refugees.

I'd love to know what this education entails.

Why don't they provide shelter to displaced Christians, Shia and other religious sects? At the end of the day the vast majority of the Middle East is Sunni and the powers that be will not.

Making this an issue about little Slovakia will only further tensions.

A friend of my dad was one of the people who went to Syria to help the Syrian people in the name of the Red Crescent organization and according to him they helped everyone without any sort of discrimination.

 

[Walpurgis]

So now what?

Does a country not have a right to discriminate in these matters? Should all borders be opened unconditionally?

Yes, it is discrimination. Now who are you to tell these people that they aren't allowed to discriminate? Will you allow Slovakia to decide upon the immigration policies of wherever you live?

Tell people that they don't have the right to control their own borders by all means. Just don't be surprised when they're driven into the arms of parties that will purport to offer said control.

SmokyDave, you have reached a new low.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Dude.... xD
It's like you haven't read a single thing he wrote.


I hate to contribute to the derail further, but... really, you want to claim that Saudi Arabia and Iran are not "truly" Islamic?

I view validating Isis view as a defense of their view, enabling of their view because reading of the text would back statements against their view


To Saudi Arabia :


There are 4 schools of thought in Islam

1. Hanafi school : imam hanifs was the influencer of this in the 8th century . As a theologian and religious lawyer. His legal thoughts on Islamic matters were consistent, using high levels of reasoning and extremely moderate and lay high emphasis on brotherhood of Muslim community

2. Maliki school : influenced by imam Malik of the 9th century. Imam Malik depended on most of his decisions on Hadith rather than Quran in their rulings but followed the contradictory rule where they made sure Hadith was not contradicting the holistic nature of the Quran

3. Shafiyya school: influenced by imam shafi and laid greater emphasis on Hadith to make religious rulings . He had an unusually high grasp of principles laid down in Islam .

4. Hanbaliyya: this was influenced by imam hanbal and the most conservative of the 4 schools. It's rigidity and intolerance caused it to decline and fall and other 3 schools became dominant. Wahabbism revived this school of thought in 18th century and was used by the house of Saud to influence political power which would eventually become Saudi Arabia. Hanbalist insist on the literal injunctions of the Quran and Hadith and very strict observance of religious duties as a result of it. Hanbalist rely on weaker Hadith which contradict the Quranic verses which was also another reason they fell from its origins
Modern day hanbalist use the injunctions of weaker Hadith to overrule the concept of the other schools of thought who first view the ruling through thr eyes of Quran and then compare if the Hadith is valid or invalid. Hanbalist first accept the Hadith as valid and then if a Quranic verse contradicts that, they ignore the verse or apply another interpretation on it



For this reason alone I don't consider Saudi especially as truly Islamic as they are borne of a failed school of thought which was revived out of extemism and state politics influence

 

[Lamel]

So now what?

Does a country not have a right to discriminate in these matters? Should all borders be opened unconditionally?

Yes, it is discrimination. Now who are you to tell these people that they aren't allowed to discriminate? Will you allow Slovakia to decide upon the immigration policies of wherever you live?

Tell people that they don't have the right to control their own borders by all means. Just don't be surprised when they're driven into the arms of parties that will purport to offer said control.

Your posts on these matters are usually much more sensible and understandable, but the bold is just wrong and you know it. There is a difference between taking in some refugees vs. opening all borders unconditionally. Anyone can call out discriminatory BS as they see it.

They can find another place. Most of the refugees are already in another place, Turkey or Lebanon. Many have a final destination in mind and move to the UK, France or Germany despite being told if they receive refugee status in one EU member state are meant to remain there.. One problem is none of the GCC countries have offered places for refugees despite having the money to house and feed them.

I didn't say drop their religion. You seem to have no idea what that conversation was about. It was equating being religious with being black, one is a choice, the other isn't.

Put yourself in their position, and then imagine being told "find another place". These aren't people with a comfortable amount of resources, they are literally on the run.

 

[Vodh]

Put yourself in their position, and then imagine being told "find another place". These aren't people with a comfortable amount of resources, they are literally on the run.

Except Slovakia isn't turning people away one by one, it's participating in a plan to accommodate a very tiny portion of the 40,000 refugees EU has agreed to take and asking to send them Christians. It's not like you're going to be shipped back to Syria if Slovakia doesn't take you, given how small the part of the total number included in the plan it's hardly going to make it a problem. I would like to think there's at least an implication of wanting to actually welcome and integrate those 200 refugees.

And let's be real, it's not like Slovakia is heaven on Earth, especially for Muslim refugees. Hell, there are thousands of refugees that are so terrified by the prospect of living in France that they risk their health and lives trying to storm the Channel Tunnel to get to UK. What makes anyone think Muslim refugees would want to stay in Slovakia? 'Accepting' Muslims only to have them migrate elsewhere as soon as they get a chance would completely invalidate what little contribution Slovakia is prepared to make.

 

[Lamel]

Except Slovakia isn't turning people away one by one, it's participating in a plan to accommodate a very tiny portion of the 40,000 refugees EU has agreed to take and asking to send them Christians. It's not like you're going to be shipped back to Syria if Slovakia doesn't take you, given how small the part of the total number included in the plan it's hardly going to make it a problem. I would like to think there's at least an implication of wanting to actually welcome and integrate those 200 refugees.

And let's be real, it's not like Slovakia is heaven on Earth, especially for Muslim refugees. Hell, there are thousands of refugees that are so terrified by the prospect of living in France that they risk their health and lives trying to storm the Channel Tunnel to get to UK. What makes anyone think Muslim refugees would want to stay in Slovakia? 'Accepting' Muslims only to have them migrate elsewhere as soon as they get a chance would completely invalidate what little contribution Slovakia is prepared to make.

I know it's not one by one; but time is a pretty valued resource for these refugees so telling them to sit around/wait or find another place is pretty crass. It's fine if Slovakia feels they can only accommodate 200 people, but they are discriminating those people based on religion - that's the main problem. Right now the major concern is getting the people out of the war torn regions and into a safer place; you can worry about migration later (which is all speculative at this point)

 

[Hyperactivity]

it's kinda hilarious that you quote someone as being proud of his former country and it's culture as a positive example and then go "who cares about that heritage and culture!"

I guess I didn't put my message through clearly (don't mean this as a jab to you, more at my post)

Personally, I feel pride for many things about the two countries I identify with (US and India), but if in 50 years, the US has a much different culture, to me that doesn't really change much. If the main culture in the US were to change, then that's just how it happened. The US would still be the US, the ethnicity or the culture of the people living here doesn't change that.

I might be giving off a screw everything free borders vibe right now, but that's not what I mean either. My opinion is that people shouldn't be "the glorious American way is dying" about things like immigration and refugees. The sort of statement has no effect on me.

The US and Canada have been founded by immigrants, built by immigrants and have been receiving constant immigration for a century (more than a century if we also count European-exclusive immigration), whereas some European countries have had the same ethnic groups living in more or less the same places for centuries and immigration has just started 20-30 years ago, in some countries it started in the last decade!

Just 40 years ago seeing a black person in Spain was a complete wonder. Now not so much, but it still is in some other countries, like the Slavic states.



Sorry, but without living here you cannot possibly understand how it is. It's not like Americans who say "yeah, I'm half Irish, and half German", but they're still Americans, speak English, etc. Immigrants to the US, for one reason or another, try hard to assimilate and "Americanize", so in the end it is a melting pot, everyone is from everywhere but most people share the same core values and develop patriotism for the country, etc.

That does not happen here, or has not happened yet because in most countries there are only one or at the very most two generations of immigrants, not more. They have not integrated, they speak almost exclusively their own languages and they don't interact with locals. So they become completely isolated groups and there's little interaction between them and us.

And yes, they probably have to assimilate and act and behave like everyone else for people to truly accept them, and it still will take a long time before people here can finally accept as Dutch/Basque/Pole/Dane/<you-name-it> someone who is from a different ethnicity. But I have already explained why is that, and it has little to do with racism or discrimination. See it this way: if I move to Japan and manage to get the citizenship, will that make me a Japanese? No, I will be a European with Japanese citizenship, but not a Japanese person. Because "Japanese people" refers to a very specific subset of people. That's how it works in the old world.

Other Japanese may not consider you "Japanese" but I'd say they were xenophobic for doing so. No, you would be a japanese citizen and a japanese person, and others trying to put limits saying you're not a "true japanese" person are filled with bs. I actually find it interesting that you mention Japan too, given that people criticize Japan heavily on this and how homogeneous it is.

You're also missing the fact that expecting immigrants to assimilate in the 1st or 2nd generation is silly. Where has that ever happened? Integration and assimilation in one or two generations! Even in the US it doesn't happen. Assimilation happens over generations, with newer generations typically being more in touch with the place they 'were born (of course, this doesn't apply individually, there are people and families that I know that don't follow this, but overall that's what happens.

Immigrants are going to situate themselves with communities that they share things with, not down to the country, or the region in the country, but down to the region in the state that they're from. Even the ones that go out and meet people from the area that they've immigrated too, even they will join communities like this.

On your point about Europe's immigration problem being relatively new, sure, that's true, but that's exactly why I feel like people should get themselves out of this "I expect immigrants to immediately assimilate" idea. The truth is, no matter where immigrants are from, you're going to see this.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

You're also missing the fact that expecting immigrants to assimilate in the 1st or 2nd generation is silly. Where has that ever happened?

Uh, all the time here? Depends on what you mean by "assimilated", I guess, but I live in Montreal and I know plenty of 1st generation immigrants who are well integrated and their original culture don't clash with local culture at all. In fact, I'm trying to think of a 1st generation immigrant person I know that isn't well integrated, and I am coming short. The only minor shortcoming I can think of is that few of them (like 2-3 people at the most) still don't speak a word of French, possibly because they went to an English-speaking university (McGill), but they do speak perfect English so I don't care much.

Integration and assimilation in one or two generations! Even in the US it doesn't happen.

Whaaat

I don't believe you.

 

[Lamel]

Yeah...immigrants assimilating in 1-2 generations is pretty common here in the northeast USA...

 

[Valnen]

lol at all the white knights in this thread when probably none would accept to invite a refugee in their own home.

Anyone using the phrase "white knights" instantly loses all credibility in their side of the argument.

 

[Cheesecakebobby]

Other Japanese may not consider you "Japanese" but I'd say they were xenophobic for doing so. No, you would be a japanese citizen and a japanese person, and others trying to put limits saying you're not a "true japanese" person are filled with bs. I actually find it interesting that you mention Japan too, given that people criticize Japan heavily on this and how homogeneous it is.

Just want to say I think you are underestimating how prevalent this way of thinking is - you are effectively calling 99% of Japanese people xenophobic and full of bs. As a foreigner in Japan I agree it is a huge problem but it will take a long long time to change these views, and I know people who think this way don't do so out of spite or hatred of others.

What really gets me is when I hear about Japanese citizens born in Japan, who may have one Japanese parent, being considered outsiders and treated as foreigners (I remember one story about the mixed-race daughter of a prominent expat blogger being refused entry to a hot spring because she looked foreign. His other, slightly more Japanese-looking daughter got in just fine. The blogger took the case to court, then a higher court, and the verdict was that no foul had been committed.)

 

[speculawyer]

I hate to contribute to the derail further, but... really, you want to claim that Saudi Arabia and Iran are not "truly" Islamic?

Don't waste your time. Some people are immune to facts, evidence, logic, rationality, etc.

It certainly helps me understand why they remain stuck in a 7th century superstitious mindset.

 

[Sch1sm]

So this sort of thing is normal in europe?


So happy to be in Canada.

We're becoming reluctant to accept immigrants and refugees as easily as the 80s/90s thanks to the Harper government, to the point that even current citizens are suffering based on new legislation.

C-24, man. It hasn't been shot down just yet, unconstitutional as it is. These are harsh times, and security seems to be at then forefront of a lot of nations at the expense of innocent lives.

 

[eerik9000]

Why is anyone surprised? Eastern European countries have always had minimal immigration, especially from Non-European countries. Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, Slovakia etc are the most homogenous countries in Europe. Also western European countries aren't exactly beacons of hope when it comes to integrating large numbers of immigrants. So I can understand this skepticism.

Umm, what? I'm from Estonia. 30% of the population are not "ethnic" Estonians, 15% of the population were born outside of Estonia. How is that homogenous?

 

[Lovely Salsa]

According to wiki

only 80% of the slovakian population are ethnically slovak

 

[Azih]

You're ranting your outrage at a post that explicitly wrote, "Not that this would justify discrimination, mind.". I thought that writing something as clear and concise as that would blatantly show that I do not favour discriminating against religion?
I was simply addressing the difference between the two aspects

The only possible significant difference between the two aspects would be if I was claiming 'racism'. I'm not claiming racism at all. I'm claiming bigotry, discrimination, a double standard, and an intellectual environment that has made it permissible to stereotype, slander, and dehumanize Muslims in a way that is not acceptable for other groups.

There is no false equivalence in pointing that out.

Here's the horrible thing that speculawyer said:

Yes, Muslims kill a LOT of Muslims! They are indeed their own worst enemies. So Muslims should understand more than anyone else why others are a little wary of Muslims.

I then asked him to show a tiny bit of introspection and replace one discriminated against group with another to see how horribly unacceptable the thing was that he said. To wit:

Yes, Blacks kill a LOT of Blacks! They are indeed their own worst enemies. So Blacks should understand more than anyone else why others are a little wary of Blacks.

Why in the name of everything that is good is the first 'okay' and the second reprehensible? What possible argument would make the first statement acceptable?

And then both of you come back with insipid irrelevant "Muslims are not a raaaace" bullshit which implies that there is something about that speculawyer post that is valid and not completely heinous because, what, being Muslim is a choice? The logic of which obviously excuses McCarthy style witch hunts.

Speculawyer was not talking about discrimination, but behaviour

What? He said Muslims should understand why people are wary of Muslims. I reject that idea completely and totally and unreservedly and in fact condemn that attitude. No I do NOT understand why others are wary of me and my family and many of my friends based on my faith. I know it's true. I know my son will be looked at funny because of his last name. And it is NOT. RIGHT.

but your attempt at painting him a racist

Again I didn't say racist at all. I don't make personal attacks. I'm not calling him a racist. I am saying strongly though that what he said is incredibly bigoted and that is accurate.

And here is another horrible comment that needs to be called out:

Don't waste your time. Some people are immune to facts, evidence, logic, rationality, etc..

Who, exactly, in this thread is immune to facts, evidence, logic, rationality, etc..? Who exactly is stuck in a '7th century' mindset.

 

[kurisu_1974]

For this reason alone I don't consider Saudi especially as truly Islamic as they are borne of a failed school of thought which was revived out of extemism and state politics influence

Since you obviously are the end-all authority on True Islam, can you give us a list of true islamic sects? How do their number relate to the total muslim population?

The logic of which obviously excuses McCarthy style witch hunts.

That's kind of a shitty analogy... the big danger of those hunts was that people starting accusing each other of being communist to further their own agenda... No one isaccusing any non-muslims of being Muslim.

 

[Azih]

That's kind of a shitty analogy... the big danger of those hunts was that people starting accusing each other of being communist to further their own agenda... No one isaccusing any non-muslims of being Muslim.

This is getting absurd. The amount of mental gymnastics required to paint bigotry against Muslims as somehow okay because it's not exactly the same in every respect to past horrors is ridiculous.

The point of the comparison is that it is NOT okay to discriminate based on choices such as creed, religion, martial status, military status etc. And to to tie it back to the original ugly statement. Muslims should not be expected to understand why others are wary of them based on their choice of religion. It's dehumanizing bigotry.

 

[kurisu_1974]

This is getting absurd. The amount of mental gymnastics required to paint bigotry against Muslims as somehow okay because it's not exactly the same in every respect to past horrors is ridiculous.

It only works the other way round?

Muslims should not be expected to understand why others are wary of them based on their choice of religion

It might be beneficial to finding a solution if they did, though. Also, are non-muslims then expected to know what true islam is even if they are totally irreligious?

 

[Azih]

It only works the other way round?

No idea what you mean by that.

It might be beneficial to finding a solution if they did, though.

The only explanation that fits is bigotry and denying muslims individuality. You putting the onus on victims of discrimination to end it?

Also, are non-muslims then expected to know what true islam is even if they are totally irreligious?

I think people should be expected to treat people like individuals.

 

[Skyzard]

Holy shit.

Open discrimination. Didn't think it would happen on an official level so soon, but it is only Slovakia.
They could have just said no, no asylum, but they thought it was acceptable to say no Muslims.


Also, so much trash in this thread, I expected better from some. Should have known better.

 

[kurisu_1974]

No idea what you mean by that.

I think you do. And the rest of your comments are too generic to respond to.

 

[Azih]

I think you do.

I really don't

And the rest of your comments are too generic to respond to.

Bigotry is bigotry. And if you don't think it's worth responding to the comment that muslims are the victims of bigotry when they're 'expected to understand' why people are wary of them because of their faith then I guess it's just not something you care about. I do. I also care about Muslims having the right to be treated like individuals. I guess that's too 'generic' for you to respond to as well.

 

[kurisu_1974]

I guess that's too 'generic' for you to respond to as well.

Yes it is; because you don't quantify the meaning of "muslim", and apparantly there isn't a non-muslim in this thread that truely understands what that word means.

Would you treat individuals that oppose gay and women's rights the same as someone who didn't? I would, but honestly only to a certain extent.

 

[Kenshin001]

Holy shit.

Open discrimination. Didn't think it would happen on an official level so soon, but it is only Slovakia.
They could have just said no, no asylum, but they thought it was acceptable to say no Muslims.


Also, so much trash in this thread, I expected better from some. Should have known better.

Why should they deny asylum to Christians when they are one of the most persecuted groups in Syria and face discrimination in Muslim countries? You'd rather Christians suffer just because Muslims are not welcomed.

 

[Skyzard]

Why should they deny asylum to Christians when they are one of the most persecuted groups in Syria and face discrimination in Muslim countries? You'd rather Christians suffer just because Muslims are not welcomed.

No one takes your posts seriously.

 

[Walpurgis]

Why should they deny asylum to Christians when they are one of the most persecuted groups in Syria and face discrimination in Muslim countries? You'd rather Christians suffer just because Muslims are not welcomed.

FFS, they shouldn't deny asylum to anyone who is in need, Christian or Muslim.

 

[Azih]

Yes it is; because you don't quantify the meaning of "muslim".

What possible difference does that make? How on earth does the meaning of 'muslim' make it okay to not treat Muslims like individuals?
The meaning of Muslim here is a discriminated against minority.

 

[RK9039]

I really don't
Bigotry is bigotry. And if you don't think it's worth responding to the comment that muslims are the victims of bigotry when they're 'expected to understand' why people are wary of them because of their faith then I guess it's just not something you care about. I do. I also care about Muslims having the right to be treated like individuals. I guess that's too 'generic' for you to respond to as well.

"Too generic to respond" = "I don't know how to reply to this".

 

[Kenshin001]

FFS, they shouldn't deny asylum to anyone who is in need, Christian or Muslim.

In a perfect world no they shouldn't. But I'd rather they help someone than no-one. Seems rather spiteful to say they should just deny asylum to everyone instead of taking in only Christians.

 

[Interceptor]

Someone who says they're Muslim, is Muslim. Does that mean they shouldn't be treated like individuals? What?

So ISIS is muslim then. Please don't use daesh in the future.

 

[norinrad]

Nobody wants to take responsibility, we will continue bombing their homes though as we chase ISIS and Assad with no backup plan how to save these people who have lost everything they once had.

 

[Skyzard]

So ISIS is muslim then. Please don't use daesh in the future.

It's like some of you have never heard of LRA.

It's not really hard to grasp that people don't want ISIS to be associated with Islam to weaken that recruiting motivator and to slowdown widespread discrimination against Muslims, which some of you don't want to happen.

 

[Azih]

So ISIS is muslim then. Please don't use daesh in the future.

That's a topic for another thread. The advantages of using Daesh vs ISIS/ISIL don't really have anything to do with the current conviction that bigotry against Muslims is acceptable.

 

[Maninthemirror]

So ISIS is muslim then. Please don't use daesh in the future.

Daesh is used predominantly in the middle east and some european journalists, ISIS/ISIL/IS is used by other western journalists

Daesh is their real name. its a short version of Dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa&#8217;al Sham which in English means the Islamic State of Iraq and Shaam (Syria).

Daesh/ISIS do not like people using Daesh tag on them because it is a smaller scale name and they think ISIS is a grander scale and it gives me them global meaning and a level of grandness and epicness

So by all means, call them Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL if you want to give them the grand stage, make them feel epic, make them have a global meaning. be their enabler and the flag bearer, be their voice in the west and a part of their defense.

It is hilarious but you have the right to, even I succumb to it when typing but if you really want to not have them call Daesh like they don't want you to. Go ahead, do as they say