En marche, citoyens!

[lejend]

How will ending 'mass migration' (which doesn't even exist) stop the problem from getting worse? Jihadis are as likely to be radicalized through the Internet these days as they are through other means. A closed and hostile immigration policy sends the wrong message while doing nothing to address the source of the problem.

The main problem isn't entirely terrorism but also demographic replacement.

Say you walk into a flooded bathroom and see the water running. What is the first thing you do? You first turn off the faucets. Then you deal with the remaining water.

Why is demographic replacement a problem?

Depends on the demographic. Look at Egypt, Byzantium, Persia, etc.

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[deleted_user0]

Show hidden quotes

How will ending 'mass migration' (which doesn't even exist) stop the problem from getting worse? Jihadis are as likely to be radicalized through the Internet these days as they are through other means. A closed and hostile immigration policy sends the wrong message while doing nothing to address the source of the problem.

The main problem isn't entirely terrorism but also demographic replacement.

Say you walk into a flooded bathroom and see the water running. What is the first thing you do? You first turn off the faucets. Then you deal with the remaining water.

Why is demographic replacement a problem?

Depends on the demographic. Look at Egypt, Byzantium, Persia, etc.

Without it no Renaissance and none of the displacements you cleverly dont mention; North and South america, Australia, south africa etc...

[Laurence Drake]

Armed invasion =/= demographic displacement.

[lejend]

Without it no Renaissance and none of the displacements you cleverly dont mention; North and South america, Australia, south africa etc...

What? And how is that relevant?

Armed invasion =/= demographic displacement.

An armed invasion is one method of demographic displacement. You are missing the point. There is no need for invasion if the target is inviting you in.

[Laurence Drake]

Without it no Renaissance and none of the displacements you cleverly dont mention; North and South america, Australia, south africa etc...

What? And how is that relevant?

Armed invasion =/= demographic displacement.

An armed invasion is one method of demographic displacement. You are missing the point. There is no need for invasion if the target is inviting you in.

Still don't see any arguments.

[lejend]

Still don't see any arguments.

The argument is that if Europeans wish to maintain their cultural, political and moral traditions, allowing an incompatible culture to proliferate in their midst is a bad idea.

You are a girl who wants to dress as she likes? Tough luck, peaches.





If you are gay? SOL, buddy.

[deleted_user0]

Without it no Renaissance and none of the displacements you cleverly dont mention; North and South america, Australia, south africa etc...

What? And how is that relevant?

I'm saying you are being biased and paint only half (if that) of the picture, naming only geographic displacements by muslims.

[deleted_user0]

Still don't see any arguments.

The argument is that if Europeans wish to maintain their cultural, political and moral traditions, allowing an incompatible culture to proliferate in their midst is a bad idea.

You are a girl who wants to dress as she likes? Tough luck, peaches.





If you are gay? SOL, buddy.

good to see that 2 years late you still come up with the same pictures!

[lejend]

Without it no Renaissance and none of the displacements you cleverly dont mention; North and South america, Australia, south africa etc...

What? And how is that relevant?

I'm saying you are being biased and paint only half (if that) of the picture, naming only geographic displacements by muslims.

What picture?

[deleted_user0]

Show hidden quotes

Without it no Renaissance and none of the displacements you cleverly dont mention; North and South america, Australia, south africa etc...

What? And how is that relevant?

I'm saying you are being biased and paint only half (if that) of the picture, naming only geographic displacements by muslims.

What picture?

Drake asks you why it's a problem. You say it depends on the demographic and then you give examples of muslim displacements only. Then look back at the context in which you posted your post and at the record of pretty much every post you've ever made on this site. Then you can see the picture.

[lejend]

Show hidden quotes

Without it no Renaissance and none of the displacements you cleverly dont mention; North and South america, Australia, south africa etc...

What? And how is that relevant?

I'm saying you are being biased and paint only half (if that) of the picture, naming only geographic displacements by muslims.

What picture?

Drake asks you why it's a problem. You say it depends on the demographic and then you give examples of muslim displacements only. Then look back at the context in which you posted your post and at the record of pretty much every post you've ever made on this site. Then you can see the picture.

Since we're talking specifically about Islamic displacement, why should I mention a Spanish displacement of Aztecs or whatever?

[deleted_user0]

Ok, I was under the impression it was about displacement in general.

[Laurence Drake]

Still don't see any arguments.

The argument is that if Europeans wish to maintain their cultural, political and moral traditions, allowing an incompatible culture to proliferate in their midst is a bad idea.

You are a girl who wants to dress as she likes? Tough luck, peaches.

What happens to Europeans who are against homosexual relationships, or who believe women should dress conservatively? Do we deport them for being 'un-European'? Where do we send them? Do we do the same to everyone who fails to conform to our liberal beliefs? Do we ban and deport Nazis, Communists, Libertarians, religious fundamentalists?

How is cultural change a problem when Muslims in Europe have no more political or social power than they did ten or twenty years ago?

[momuuu]

Why are people trying to have serious discussion with legend?

[lejend]

Still don't see any arguments.

The argument is that if Europeans wish to maintain their cultural, political and moral traditions, allowing an incompatible culture to proliferate in their midst is a bad idea.

You are a girl who wants to dress as she likes? Tough luck, peaches.

What happens to Europeans who are against homosexual relationships, or who believe women should dress conservatively? Do we deport them for being 'un-European'? Where do we send them? Do we do the same to everyone who fails to conform to our liberal beliefs? Do we ban and deport Nazis, Communists, Libertarians, religious fundamentalists?

How is cultural change a problem when Muslims in Europe have no more political or social power than they did ten or twenty years ago?

That's a red herring. There is no serious support for sharia-like laws among indigenous Europeans. There is among European Muslims, however, and as their population increases, so will their influence, since Europe is democratic. We are already seeing hints of what is to come in the form of Islamic enclaves, where European norms, such as gender mixing in public areas, are virtually non-existent.

[Laurence Drake]

Show hidden quotes

Still don't see any arguments.

The argument is that if Europeans wish to maintain their cultural, political and moral traditions, allowing an incompatible culture to proliferate in their midst is a bad idea.

You are a girl who wants to dress as she likes? Tough luck, peaches.

What happens to Europeans who are against homosexual relationships, or who believe women should dress conservatively? Do we deport them for being 'un-European'? Where do we send them? Do we do the same to everyone who fails to conform to our liberal beliefs? Do we ban and deport Nazis, Communists, Libertarians, religious fundamentalists?

How is cultural change a problem when Muslims in Europe have no more political or social power than they did ten or twenty years ago?

That's a red herring. There is no serious support for sharia-like laws among indigenous Europeans. There is among European Muslims, however, and as their population increases, so will their influence, since Europe is democratic. We are already seeing hints of what is to come in the form of Islamic enclaves, where European norms, such as gender mixing in public areas, are virtually non-existent.

It's not a red herring. It's a serious issue that you need to address to maintain coherence.

[lejend]

It's not a red herring. It's a serious issue that you need to address to maintain coherence.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue but that doesn't make it relevant. It's a red herring and distracts from the discussion.

[Laurence Drake]

It's not a red herring. It's a serious issue that you need to address to maintain coherence.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue but that doesn't make it relevant. It's a red herring and distracts from the discussion.

It's not a red herring because the logical implication of your stance is that anyone with radically illiberal ideologies should not have the right to live in liberal democracies, and that this involves deporting native-born citizens with Communist or Nazi or religious fundamentalist views. You have to be prepared to accept this implication, or else explain why this implication doesn't in fact follow. Otherwise your stance is either incoherent or incomplete.

[lejend]

It's not a red herring. It's a serious issue that you need to address to maintain coherence.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue but that doesn't make it relevant. It's a red herring and distracts from the discussion.

It's not a red herring because the logical implication of your stance is that anyone with radically illiberal ideologies should not have the right to live in liberal democracies, and that this involves deporting native-born citizens with Communist or Nazi or religious fundamentalist views. You have to be prepared to accept this implication, or else explain why this implication doesn't in fact follow. Otherwise your stance is either incoherent or incomplete.

There is no right to migrate to another country. Countries have a right to reject any and all immigrants with an incompatible culture. I think "believes in freedom" is a very reasonable and fair requirement for immigration benefits.

[Laurence Drake]

Show hidden quotes

It's not a red herring. It's a serious issue that you need to address to maintain coherence.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue but that doesn't make it relevant. It's a red herring and distracts from the discussion.

It's not a red herring because the logical implication of your stance is that anyone with radically illiberal ideologies should not have the right to live in liberal democracies, and that this involves deporting native-born citizens with Communist or Nazi or religious fundamentalist views. You have to be prepared to accept this implication, or else explain why this implication doesn't in fact follow. Otherwise your stance is either incoherent or incomplete.

There is no right to migrate to another country. Countries have a right to reject any and all immigrants with an incompatible culture. I think "believes in human rights" is a very reasonable and fair requirement for immigration benefits.

It's not just the right to migrate that's important here. You said yourself that demographic displacement is still a worry even among the native-born. This is about the right to remain in a country, even after you've developed ties and even after you've created a home for yourself there, whether through birth or extended residence. Do people lose that right because they hold radically illiberal views?

[lejend]

Show hidden quotes

It's not a red herring. It's a serious issue that you need to address to maintain coherence.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue but that doesn't make it relevant. It's a red herring and distracts from the discussion.

It's not a red herring because the logical implication of your stance is that anyone with radically illiberal ideologies should not have the right to live in liberal democracies, and that this involves deporting native-born citizens with Communist or Nazi or religious fundamentalist views. You have to be prepared to accept this implication, or else explain why this implication doesn't in fact follow. Otherwise your stance is either incoherent or incomplete.

There is no right to migrate to another country. Countries have a right to reject any and all immigrants with an incompatible culture. I think "believes in human rights" is a very reasonable and fair requirement for immigration benefits.

It's not just the right to migrate that's important here. You said yourself that demographic displacement is still a worry even among the native-born. This is about the right to remain in a country, even after you've developed ties and even after you've created a home for yourself there, whether through birth or extended residence. Do people lose that right because they hold radically illiberal views?

Yes, you do lose most of your rights if you violate others' rights. Let's say indigenous Europeans and their supporters drop to 49% of the population. They are outvoted by the immigrant populations and foreign laws are passed, such as the prohibition of homosexuality. Are Europeans supposed to simply take it?

Keep in mind that much of Europe was under Islamic control for over half a millennium.

[deleted_user0]

Show hidden quotes

It's not a red herring. It's a serious issue that you need to address to maintain coherence.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue but that doesn't make it relevant. It's a red herring and distracts from the discussion.

It's not a red herring because the logical implication of your stance is that anyone with radically illiberal ideologies should not have the right to live in liberal democracies, and that this involves deporting native-born citizens with Communist or Nazi or religious fundamentalist views. You have to be prepared to accept this implication, or else explain why this implication doesn't in fact follow. Otherwise your stance is either incoherent or incomplete.

There is no right to migrate to another country. Countries have a right to reject any and all immigrants with an incompatible culture. I think "believes in human rights" is a very reasonable and fair requirement for immigration benefits.

It's not just the right to migrate that's important here. You said yourself that demographic displacement is still a worry even among the native-born. This is about the right to remain in a country, even after you've developed ties and even after you've created a home for yourself there, whether through birth or extended residence. Do people lose that right because they hold radically illiberal views?

Yes, you do lose most of your rights if you violate others' rights. Let's say indigenous Europeans and their supporters drop to 49% of the population. They are outvoted by the immigrant populations and foreign laws are passed, such as the prohibition of homosexuality. Are Europeans supposed to simply take it?

Keep in mind that much of Europe was under Islamic control for over half a millennium.

You lose some rights, not others. Once you're a citizen, they can't take that away from you, if you like to call yourself a constitutional democracy that is. Ofcourse, once you become a dictatorship or a totalitarian regime, you can do as you please.

And not much of Europe was under Islamic control for over half a century. It was a longer timeframe but a much smaller region. Spain was from 700 - 1400. Sicily was held for about 1-2 centuries and The balkan was held from 1453 - 1900. That's not even a quarter of europe in total, and not even at the same time.

Can you explain why we have to keep that in mind? The islamic rule of Muslim spain was much more tolerant than the reign of Queen Isabella and Ferdinand, who expulsed the jews and started the inquisition. Cordoba was also very advanced in terms of cultural and scientific development, and the information acquired by the conquest of Cordoba greatly influenced the renaissance. Not much can be said about the conquerers of sicily, they were basically pirates, but so were the Norman adventurers who kicked the muslims out and ruled it after, and now the maffia rules it. So basically not much changed there. And the ottoman rule of the Balkan in no way compares to what european christian nations did basically anywhere else on the world at the same time and later in history. But yes, go Hungary and the Polish Hussars!!!

Stick to the facts, if you want propaganda, go troll reddit.

[lejend]

Southern Europe is a pretty big chunk of Europe, munchkin. And if hostile cultures were expelled after 700 years of settlement, a similar expulsion after 60 years is notably less drastic.

[Laurence Drake]

Show hidden quotes

It's not a red herring. It's a serious issue that you need to address to maintain coherence.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue but that doesn't make it relevant. It's a red herring and distracts from the discussion.

It's not a red herring because the logical implication of your stance is that anyone with radically illiberal ideologies should not have the right to live in liberal democracies, and that this involves deporting native-born citizens with Communist or Nazi or religious fundamentalist views. You have to be prepared to accept this implication, or else explain why this implication doesn't in fact follow. Otherwise your stance is either incoherent or incomplete.

There is no right to migrate to another country. Countries have a right to reject any and all immigrants with an incompatible culture. I think "believes in human rights" is a very reasonable and fair requirement for immigration benefits.

It's not just the right to migrate that's important here. You said yourself that demographic displacement is still a worry even among the native-born. This is about the right to remain in a country, even after you've developed ties and even after you've created a home for yourself there, whether through birth or extended residence. Do people lose that right because they hold radically illiberal views?

Yes, you do lose most of your rights if you violate others' rights. Let's say indigenous Europeans and their supporters drop to 49% of the population. They are outvoted by the immigrant populations and foreign laws are passed, such as the prohibition of homosexuality. Are Europeans supposed to simply take it?

Keep in mind that much of Europe was under Islamic control for over half a millennium.

But the prohibition of homosexuality isn't a 'foreign law'. There are places in Europe where homosexual relationships are still frowned upon, and homosexual marriage forbidden, and these circumstances are the outcomes of the views of native, indigenous Europeans. Do we just deport native-born Europeans if they harbour these types of illiberal views? What gives the locals the privilege to remain when the criterion we're using to determine whether people have such a privilege is whether their beliefs are illiberal?