Trump

[PumaG]

Are any of those people saying all Muslims should not be allowed entrance to the US?

For they are I'd happily call them idiots.

Keep grasping.

actually some wanted to prioritise Christians! which would have meant the same temporary ban on Muslims that Trump proposes

How do you feel about a Christian country proposing helping its own first? or the lack of help for Muslim refugees in the Arab world?

I'm not not sure "help their own first" is particularly Christian. It is something I've often heard from racists though.

What do you think about it? How does "help their own first" apply to how the US should treat other religions? What about jews?

It's a fucked up way to look at the world. Slovakia takes that position and it's a disgrace IMHO.

Why would withhold help to people who's lives are being destroyed on the basis of their religion?

And particularly America who has a constitution forbidding any favour or sanction based on religious belief.

The Christians were being persecuted and it seems they were unable to afford to pay the people traffickers or commit the crimes to gain entry to make them eligible for Asylum in the first place.. That should be good enough reason to prioritise them, but they couldn't, due to the fear you've just expressed!
They will never be hand picked for help, due to their religion! and the political correctness and the fear the likes of you create. ( The reason Ali G was untouchable "we gave him a Muslim name so he wouldnt be challenged")

Also, why would anyone in America provide a task force to extract anyone from a war zone, when all their energy goes into arming rebels?

People like you dont give two fucks whats going on until they make it to the west, then they become poor things. What about the 'poor things' who can't leave? you know, the sick, the crippled, elderly, they can fuck right off cant they. Very brave of you! HANG ON, theres a distinct lack of Women and Children escaping the war zones, whos helping them brave man? Certainly not the young Muslim men of fighting age who now have a sense of entitlement for a better life in Germany or Sweden, then end up in schools being taught how to behave around women

Just as brave as you turning your back, as the likes of Clinton and Obama voted, and became responsible for killing innocent Muslims, when they wernt even sure they were doing the right thing. You turn your back to lead a campaign against Trump for the words he says.

You don't seem to have even a passing knowledge of what you're talking about.

SIGH here we go again, youre sounding more and more like pathetic Narcissist. Stop and think that people do have different view points, mentalities and look a lot deeper into whats going on.
Arnt you due to post another funny pic of Trump ? to coincide with both Clinton and Obama admitting they made mistakes costing tens of thousands of lives.

[PumaG]

Trump confuses 9/11 with 7-Eleven. In New York the day before their vote. Probably will still win there.

I just watched that on our TV news.

I should say that our news present him everyday as completelly retarded.

Well. Yes. It's kinda difficult to present him as anything else, you know?

the retarded thing is that Hillary and Barrack get off lightly making votes and decisions they wernt even sure of, that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, whilst Trump is taken to task for his clumsy half hearted approach to social media and verbal slip-ups. Cowards.

On the plus side, maybe if he becomes president he'll accidentally vote for peace instead of war. Eeh Hillary?

[zip accident]

Islam is not a race.

I'm not racist, but there are a bunch of religions I'm not at all fond of.

Islam heads that list by a large margin, second is probably christianity.

[gravy]

The Christians were being persecuted and it seems they were unable to afford to pay the people traffickers or commit the crimes to gain entry to make them eligible for Asylum. That should be good enough reason to prioritise them, but they couldn't, due to the fear you've just expressed!

Hey I believe in positive discrimination just like you do! (I strongly suspect you'd also describe positive discrimination for any disadvantaged group as pandering) But the claim that you can generalize in this case on the basis of religion clearly bullshit.

I'm all for people who need the most help getting the most help. I'm not for denying people who need help on the basis of their religion.

I'm responding to your 'helping their own' comment which is neither Christian and a common touch stone for racists. Which is what you said.

You're called out for it and pretend that's not what you meant? lol

They will never be hand picked for help, due to their religion! and the political correctness and the fear the likes of you create. ( The reason Ali G was untouchable "we gave him a Muslim name so he wouldnt be challenged")

Handpicked or willing to bribe other or break laws? Make your mind up mate.

People like you dont give two fucks whats going on until they make it to the west, then they become poor things. What about the 'poor things' who can't leave? you know, the sick, the crippled, elderly, they can fuck right off cant they. Very brave of you! HANG ON, theres a distinct lack of Women and Children escaping the war zones, whos helping them brave man? Certainly not the young Muslim men of fighting age who now have a sense of entitlement for a better life in Germany or Sweden, then end up in schools being taught how to behave around women

Most help for the people that need most help. You're arguing from excluding Muslim women and children from getting help by prioritizing Christians over them. And on the basis of what you imagine to be going on in the heads of Muslim male refugees in Sweden.

SIGH here we go again, youre sounding more and more like pathetic Narcissist. Stop and think that people do have different view points, mentalities and look a lot deeper into whats going on.
Arnt you due to post another funny pic of Trump ? to coincide with both Clinton and Obama admitting they made mistakes costing tens of thousands of lives.

I respect your right to have a different point of view. Just like you would hopefully respect the right of anyone to point out the any of fundamental factual errors in what your saying.

The consistent pattern here is someone who's seriously under informed channeling anti-leftard rage into a series of incoherent posts. I mean it's the internet and that's par for course I guess.

Is your name Bruce?



Hoorah for freedom of speech!

[gravy]

Islam is not a race.

I'm not racist, but there are a bunch of religions I'm not at all fond of.

Islam heads that list by a large margin, second is probably christianity.

The normative definition of racism discrimination on the basis of social and racial difference.

It's not the dictionary definition but so what? The concept of human races is generally seen as rubbish these days.

[zip accident]

Islam is not a race.

I'm not racist, but there are a bunch of religions I'm not at all fond of.

Islam heads that list by a large margin, second is probably christianity.

The normative definition of racism discrimination on the basis of social and racial difference.

It's not the dictionary definition but so what?

It's wrong is what.

There are "white" islamists. The Boston bombers and their more peaceful relatives for example.

People can change their religion, but not their race. If they are islamic, changing their religion is anathema, but outside islamic countries they could do it if they wanted.

[gravy]

What word would you use for this appalling discrimination?

[zip accident]

What word would you use for this appalling discrimination?

I'm not sure what he's actually saying, let alone intending.

Quite possibly his intention is racist, in which case he's mistaken.

If the people are allowed in providing they renounce their previous religion, that could br very positive in the long run. If on the other hand they are disbarred on the basis of their prior religion, that would be silly.

I don't have one word for that.

[phattslagg]

This reminds me of a conversation earlier in the thread, whereby zip thought that the statement "race is not culture - culture is not race" could somehow exonerate someone from making sweeping generalisations about Muslims, because apparently you can make negative assumptions about someone from another culture, without being racist. But the fact is that this paltry excuse for an argument is nothing more than a semantic dead-end.

Yes - there are still people dumb enough to think that the genetic heritage of one person can afford them an objective advantage/disadvantage over that of another person of different ethnicity, but this has long been debunked, and deserves no further debate or consideration.

So what are left with? Culture - which can and in fact must be defined on both a macro and micro level, not just in terms of locality, but religion, age and sex, including orientation. In other words, it is something entirely fluid, with many, many branches, within each of which there will be deviations. Simplifying an incredibly diverse and culturally rich group of people, that amounts to about 1/5 of the entire human race, into a one-size-fits-all description is nothing more than lazy thinking.

The point I'm trying to make is that anti-Islamic rhetoric is often indistinguishable from racism. Trying to weasel out of it by saying "Islam isn't a race" is laughable, and the point is irrelevant. The net result is that (mostly) negative statements are being used to stigmatise huge numbers of people, the vast majority of whom happen to come from a different ethnicity from the majority of those spouting the rhetoric.

[gravy]

That's pretty much spot on.

What I hate about this kind of side step into semantics is racism and prejudice on the basis of religion are pretty much the equivalent in terms of cuntyness.

I also feel when someone starts on with the "jews aren't a race! islam isn't a race!" stuff they're also saying it's okay to be a bigot because it's not racist. And even if it is lets talk about the root meaning of words when the real issue is appalling behavior.

[venusian]

And you're both completely failing to make the distinction that zip made.

He's not fond of Islam. I didn't see him say he's not fond of Muslims.

He doesn't like Christianity. I didn't see him say he doesn't like Christians.

Ideas and the people who hold them are separable. This is not slippery semantics, this is the basis on which the whole of liberal western culture is based. It is possible, indeed necessary, to criticise ideas, including religion without discriminating against those who hold those ideas. This is not "racism" against the people who follow that religion.

Groups of people do bad things in the name of ideas. Failure to distinguish between the idea, the groups and individuals is one of the most insidious.

[Darkflame]

Yeah, there's somewhat of a logic flaw.
While I can certainly see "not blaming people for how they are born" is very solid ideological ground, it often seems the wrong ground to pick.

Like with sexual preference - some defend it on the grounds of lack of choice - so what if it was? Would that suddenly make it wrong? Of course not!

The only choices that are wrong are that which unnecessarily harm others. Other than that, do what you like, do who you like, be what you like.
Religion might leave you open to exploitation, and thus lead to the wrong choices. But it is only one of countless factors, and if your threshold for declaring a "bad group" is as low as the percentage of terrorists are relative to the number of Muslims, you have to start looking at and condemning countless other groups.

[phattslagg]

Haha! I've just realised it was venusian who said "race isn't culture - "culture isn't race" in another thread altogether!

Apologies due to zip accident, especially as I can't edit my post now.

[gravy]

And you're both completely failing to make the distinction that zip made.

He's not fond of Islam. I didn't see him say he's not fond of Muslims.

He doesn't like Christianity. I didn't see him say he doesn't like Christians.

Ideas and the people who hold them are separable. This is not slippery semantics, this is the basis on which the whole of liberal western culture is based. It is possible, indeed necessary, to criticise ideas, including religion without discriminating against those who hold those ideas. This is not "racism" against the people who follow that religion.

Groups of people do bad things in the name of ideas. Failure to distinguish between the idea, the groups and individuals is one of the most insidious.

Well obviously.

He's saying that entrance on the states being barred to Muslims not wanting to renounce their religion is fine.

That's tying the religion directly to the individual. Also this conversation is a run on from the idea of discriminating about people on the basis of their religion.

Trump saying keep all Muslmis out of America is bigotted, prejudiced and if you use the word racist for it? So what.

I

[zip accident]

That's pretty much spot on.

What I hate about this kind of side step into semantics is racism and prejudice on the basis of religion are pretty much the equivalent in terms of cuntyness.

I also feel when someone starts on with the "jews aren't a race! islam isn't a race!" stuff they're also saying it's okay to be a bigot because it's not racist. And even if it is lets talk about the root meaning of words when the real issue is appalling behavior.

Jews are a race, more or less.

If you have a jewish grandmother, you're a jew.

You can convert to judaism, it's not encouraged from within that faith, and it's very hard work.

This reminds me of a conversation earlier in the thread, whereby zip thought that the statement "race is not culture - culture is not race" could somehow exonerate someone from making sweeping generalisations about Muslims, because apparently you can make negative assumptions about someone from another culture, without being racist. But the fact is that this paltry excuse for an argument is nothing more than a semantic dead-end.

Yes - there are still people dumb enough to think that the genetic heritage of one person can afford them an objective advantage/disadvantage over that of another person of different ethnicity, but this has long been debunked, and deserves no further debate or consideration.

So you've proved it wrong by saying "you're wrong" and have nothing more to say?

So what are left with? Culture - which can and in fact must be defined on both a macro and micro level, not just in terms of locality, but religion, age and sex, including orientation. In other words, it is something entirely fluid, with many, many branches, within each of which there will be deviations. Simplifying an incredibly diverse and culturally rich group of people, that amounts to about 1/5 of the entire human race, into a one-size-fits-all description is nothing more than lazy thinking.

Are you sure about that?

People change, all the time, whether they want to or not.

Correlation does not imply causation

I've certainly said things like this before, I'm not sure it was this thread.

The point I'm trying to make is that anti-Islamic rhetoric is often indistinguishable from racism. Trying to weasel out of it by saying "Islam isn't a race" is laughable, and the point is irrelevant. The net result is that (mostly) negative statements are being used to stigmatise huge numbers of people, the vast majority of whom happen to come from a different ethnicity from the majority of those spouting the rhetoric.

Sometimes, racists hide behind anti-islamic statements. A person can change their religion. If they do that, and they are still attacked, then it's almost certainly racism. If however, the objection is really to the religion, dropping it should result in a change.

Cultures change all the time, if they merge I think that's probably good, if they keep separate I don't see how that is different from Aparthied which we know was bad?

New page: *tries to rescue some of the relevant comments made after this was begun*

And you're both completely failing to make the distinction that zip made.

He's not fond of Islam. I didn't see him say he's not fond of Muslims.

He doesn't like Christianity. I didn't see him say he doesn't like Christians.

Ideas and the people who hold them are separable. This is not slippery semantics, this is the basis on which the whole of liberal western culture is based. It is possible, indeed necessary, to criticise ideas, including religion without discriminating against those who hold those ideas. This is not "racism" against the people who follow that religion.

Groups of people do bad things in the name of ideas. Failure to distinguish between the idea, the groups and individuals is one of the most insidious.

That's about what I'm thinking.

Yeah, there's somewhat of a logic flaw.
While I can certainly see "not blaming people for how they are born" is very solid ideological ground, it often seems the wrong ground to pick.

Like with sexual preference - some defend it on the grounds of lack of choice - so what if it was? Would that suddenly make it wrong? Of course not!

The only choices that are wrong are that which unnecessarily harm others. Other than that, do what you like, do who you like, be what you like.
Religion might leave you open to exploitation, and thus lead to the wrong choices. But it is only one of countless factors, and if your threshold for declaring a "bad group" is as low as the percentage of terrorists are relative to the number of Muslims, you have to start looking at and condemning countless other groups.

...

Well obviously.

He's saying that entrance on the states being barred to Muslims not wanting to renounce their religion is fine.

That's tying the religion directly to the individual. Also this conversation is a run on from the idea of discriminating about people on the basis of their religion.

Trump saying keep all Muslmis out of America is bigotted, prejudiced and if you use the word racist for it? So what.

I

Trump may well be racist, I don't know what goes on in his head, but he sounds like "a definite maybe" (TM RM Nixon).

I would want muslims to renounce their religion, because it's bad news. The worst thing about it is probably that there is a last prophet. I kind of like the Sikhs, but they have a last prophet too, and I find that worrying. I really don't like the Hindu caste system, their theology may be as close to physics as we'll find in something that old, but the caste system is horrendous in my opinion.