Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[novcze]

"It's not worrying, one of the logical things you can do to remove possibility of being run over is to remove all cars, because you can't tell if or when a driver will run you over."

"It's not worrying, one of the logical things you can do to remove possibility of being murdered is to never speak to or see another human being, because you can't tell if or when you might be murdered."

"It's not worrying, one of the logical things you can do to remove possibility of choking on your food is to never eat, because you can't tell if or when you might choke on your food."

"It's not worrying, one of the logical things you can do to remove possibility of dying is to never be born, because you can't tell if or when you might die."

Stop me when I hit something roughly as silly...

Taking statement out of the context is not smart nor funny.

 

[homeforsummer]

Taking statement out of the context is not smart nor funny.

I wasn't intending it to be either. All it needed to be was relevant, which is exactly what it was.

You are proposing solving a problem by taking a needlessly extreme action. Planning a funeral for a papercut. Putting out a match by pouring an ocean on it. Removing every car on the road so no more car accidents can happen.

Proposing removing everyone of a certain religion from an entire geographic area to prevent a handful of people killing a handful of other people is equally ridiculous.

 

[novcze]

I wasn't intending it to be either. All it needed to be was relevant, which is exactly what it was.

You are proposing solving a problem by taking a needlessly extreme action. Planning a funeral for a papercut. Putting out a match by pouring an ocean on it. Removing every car on the road so no more car accidents can happen.

Proposing removing everyone of a certain religion from an entire geographic area to prevent a handful of people killing a handful of other people is equally ridiculous.

Really? I didn't propose it, read it again.

 

[Joel]

Oh and you can't group over a billion people (ZOMG NINE ZEROS ) because it's what? Disgusting? Racist? Ben Affleck is that you? I'll group over a billion people because they follow a specific religion based on a specific book. In that billion or so I can further group them into casual, moderate and hardcore. Kazakhstan being one of the most casual and Saudi Arabia being the hardcore.

Because as much as you're trying to be hilarious with ZOMG NINE ZEROES, over a billion people is a massive number. And you of all people should know there's enough fighting within different sects of Islam that it's disingenuous to paint them all with the same brush. Whether or not it's racist is irrelevant, it's completely inaccurate and doesn't do you, your argument, or anyone any favours by painting so many people with a broad brush.

As an aside if you want your ideas to be taken seriously you'd probably be best to stop using the word "racist" sarcastically. Racism and xenophobia is very much relevant to this discussion (that does not mean I'm saying you are racist), and diminishing it to a sarcastic joke as if racism between western countries and Islam isn't a two way street is a very out of touch way to look at it. I don't personally think you're racist, but constantly bringing up racism only serves to make me wonder why you're seemingly so frustrated and tired of being called racist.

Taking statement out of the context is not smart nor funny.

Well nothing he said was wrong, he's following the same logic as you were. You really can't tell when you'll be in a car accident so you may as well not drive, right?

Context is irrelevant when the reasoning is faulty in the first place. There's no "context" that exists in the real world that would make "get rid of all the Muslims because we don't know who will go rogue" a logical or appropriate course of action.

 

[Dotini]

All it needed to be was relevant, which is exactly what it was.
----------
Proposing removing everyone of a certain religion from an entire geographic area to prevent a handful of people killing a handful of other people is equally ridiculous.

It's true that it's impossible and ridiculous to remove an entire population from Europe.

But the most that folks like Wilders have proposed is to move out the most most extreme, criminal and most difficult to assimilate. I think.

 

[novcze]

No idea what "Juice" is, but it sounds very tinfoil.Actually I provided the numbers which showed just how small the Muslim population of Europe is and how little effect they'd have if each and every one of them killed as many people as the two who attacked the CharlieHebdo offices on the population of Europe, disproving your point about how many of them there are and the danger they pose.

I also asked what the "multi-culti card" was. You didn't answer.

I see religion motivated terrorism as the biggest danger. You don't. We can move on.

play multi-culti card = continue with multicultural politics

 

[homeforsummer]

Really? I didn't propose it, read it again.

I did.

Hmmm well, you can't just remove 12m of people, so if you don't want to repeat German atrocities from 70 years ago you will play multi-culti card as you don't have other choice.

It does however raise the rather worrying factor of why you believe we need to even consider removing them?

It's not worrying, one of the logical things you can do to remove possibility of islam terrorism is to remove all of muslims, because you can't tell if or when each individual will radicalize.
I'm not saying we should do it...

Whether you're saying we should do it or not. It is still proposing a solution. "To put forward a plan or suggestion for consideration by others".

You are suggesting that removing an entire sub-set of people from an entire area is the "logical" thing to do to remove terrorism.

Whether you actually think we should do it or not, it's still a ridiculous suggestion. It is also the very opposite of what you claim it is - logical - because the outcome would be far more damaging for a group that already feels marginalised in a society made suspicious by the actions of a handful of people within that group.

Unfortunately, there is no "logical" solution to the problem of religious terrorism. One, because all religion is inherently illogical - it involves putting faith in a being we cannot know exists - and two, because it's illogical trying to reason with people that display psychopathic characteristics.

 

[Dotini]

I see religion motivated terrorism as the biggest danger. You don't. We can move on.

Let's linger here a moment, please.

I think terrorism as blowback from the US and European multiple recent interventions/invasions is the prime motivation, and is supported by the evidence. I don't think religion is the motivation.

 

[mustafur]

Oh course its Blowback, the Quicker NATO learns this the safer we all are.

 

[novcze]

I did.



Whether you're saying we should do it or not. It is still proposing a solution. "To put forward a plan or suggestion for consideration by others".

You are suggesting that removing an entire sub-set of people from an entire area is the "logical" thing to do to remove terrorism.

Whether you actually think we should do it or not, it's still a ridiculous suggestion. It is also the very opposite of what you claim it is - logical - because the outcome would be far more damaging for a group that already feels marginalised in a society made suspicious by the actions of a handful of people within that group.

Unfortunately, there is no "logical" solution to the problem of religious terrorism. One, because all religion is inherently illogical - it involves putting faith in a being we cannot know exists - and two, because it's illogical trying to reason with people that display psychopathic characteristics.

My use of the English didn't help probably, but if you feel it was proposal it's my mistake. I wanted to demonstrate simple logical link between source of the danger and its removal. Otherwise I agree with you.

 

[Scaff]

Well, you provided the numbers and it's obvious that we can do nothing about it but:

And multi-culturalism is bad why?

We are talking about European muslims, so not a billion people. And all I'm saying is that:

And all European Muslims are from the same sect and share the exact same ideology and world view?

Nope, they are as diverse as Muslims as a whole are, as such treating them as a single group with the same world view is as illogical as treating all Muslims as a whole is.

What is illogical about removing possible source of danger to eliminate the danger.

Eastern Europeans are a potential risk, lets remove all of them just to make sure.

What you are proposing is ethnic cleansing, something that is not exactly a great idea.

Do you talk about arab country with islam as the state religion? Because this have so much to do with the topic of islam.
I know someone (I don't want to be specific) who works in arab country with islam as the state religion and all I hear is that they are dumb bigoted horny pigs and of course if you are women you have to dress like muslim women do, no tolerance there.

Yes and more than one. Some are great others a lot less so, so once again treating them as a whole is illogical and inaccurate.

No one and nothing is free from criticism, people need to understand this, even muslims. Nobody is forcing them to look at caricature, faith is their private thing.

I've never said otherwise so I'm not sure why you bring it up.

The first link comes up as this to me:

I can only think the issue is at you end as I have downlaoded the file countless times, its too big to upload as an attachment here. I will look to get it to an FTP site later tonight and provide a link.

This second and third link you provided, seem to reference the same totals that I quoted you earlier. So it appears from your links that there is nothing wrong with the right-wing terror numbers I originally provided and that terrorism incidents by right wing is almost non-existant. It appears you were incorrect in saying that right wing terrorism is on the increase and it's a bit misleading to even mention it, given how miniscule the number of incidents there are in relation to left wing terrorism in the EU.

As I have already said the numbers come from figures provided by governments, some of which may well be reluctant to provide them given the historic context. Which is exactly why Europol look on a case by case basis.

Once I get the file uploaded you can have a read for yourself, however without numbers we may not agree. However I would add that I am active in a number of anti-fascist groups in Europe and from that perspective a growth is most certainly occurring.

I see religion motivated terrorism as the biggest danger. You don't. We can move on.

Yet you unable to support that claim.

play multi-culti card = continue with multicultural politics

And multiculturalism is an issue why?

You've been asked to provide your definition of it, please do so as Its rather difficult to know what you object to when you will not define it.

 

[InSight]

Eastern Europeans are a potential risk, lets remove all of them just to make sure.

What you are proposing is ethnic cleansing, something that is not exactly a great idea.

This is already happening, but in the opposite direction and 10 times slower. Takes 50 years instead of 5, but the result will be the same. Call it diversity, multi-kulti, feminism, gay rights, infertility-causing GMO food, globalization or whatever you want, but in the big picture, it is what it is.

 

[novcze]

What you are proposing is ethnic cleansing, something that is not exactly a great idea.

so now I'm second Hitler ... interesting, I will probably stay in "games" section of GTPlanet before someone accuse me of starting WW3

 

[Scaff]

This is already happening, but in the opposite direction and 10 times slower. Takes 50 years instead of 5, but the result will be the same. Call it diversity, multi-kulti, feminism, gay rights, infertility-causing GMO food, globalization or whatever you want, but in the big picture, it is what it is.

Apart from the GMO nonsense I don't have an issue with any of the things you mentioned. What exactly is wrong with gay rights, women having equal rights, diversity and multi-culturalism?

My family is multi-cultural so it would be a bit odd for me to have an issue with it.

so now I'm second Hitler ... interesting, I will probably stay in "games" section of GTPlanet before someone accuse me of starting WW3

Your the one that suggested it as a solution, as such complaining when its commented on it a bit odd.

You exercised your free speech, all I did is explain exactly how it sounds.

What is however interesting is that you use it as an out rather than answering the questions raised.

 

[VolkswagenX]

 

[Famine]

I see religion motivated terrorism as the biggest danger. You don't. We can move on.

Not really, because you made a claim that the numbers debunked. If that doesn't provoke an alteration in your position you need to wonder why it is you hold that position and why you're unwilling to examine it.

play multi-culti card = continue with multicultural politics

But what does that even mean?

"Multiculturalism" is the act of absorbing smaller cultures into a larger one but allowing it to retain its cultural identity. This means that people who immigrate to a new country must learn the language and laws in order to function within the society, but they can retain cultural practices (like language, food, dress, religion) that do not contradict the laws - so they can still make their traditional dish but, if they happen to be cannibals, they can't use the meat they would in their home country.

Multiculturalism is what allows British people to emigrate to Spain and live in communities where they talk English, have English food, go to shops that stock English products and English newspapers but all the road signs are in Spanish, all the policemen speak Spanish and all communication with local government is in Spanish.

The alternatives to multiculturalism are ghetto immigration with legal exemptions (setting up communities of immigrants with no requirement for them to adapt at all) and all national documentation printed in every language on Earth, immigration with complete assimilation (banning two people from the same country talking the same foreign language to each other, for example) or no immigration at all. Which of these four options seems the best to you?

So why is it bad?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No idea what "Juice" is, but it sounds very tinfoil.

I think it's supposed to be some kind of shadowy, New World Order type of conspiratorial cabal. One that is desperately in need of a rebranding. I mean, "Juice"? It's completely non-threatening. If you're going to control the world from the shadows, then at least go the whole nine yards and call your organisation SPECTRE.

 

[kennylmao]

"It's not worrying, one of the logical things you can do to remove possibility of being run over is to remove all cars, because you can't tell if or when a driver will run you over."

"It's not worrying, one of the logical things you can do to remove possibility of being murdered is to never speak to or see another human being, because you can't tell if or when you might be murdered."

"It's not worrying, one of the logical things you can do to remove possibility of choking on your food is to never eat, because you can't tell if or when you might choke on your food."

"It's not worrying, one of the logical things you can do to remove possibility of dying is to never be born, because you can't tell if or when you might die."

Stop me when I hit something roughly as silly...

From an atheist perspective, all the examples you've stated has a purpose, unlike religion. Just my 2 sen anyway.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What exactly is wrong with gay rights, women having equal rights, diversity and multi-culturalism?

I have been thinking about this, and I have come up with an interesting answer - there is nothing inherently wrong with it, we're just going about it in the wrong way.

We debate at length the status of gender rights, gay rights, civil rights and so on and so forth; in this conversation, we look at it in the context of the Islamic world, calling for immediate reform, but we have lost sight of the path that we took to get there ourselves. How long did it take for the civil rights movement to take hold? Decades. We still haven't sorted out gender equality and gay rights. We're getting there, but the point is that it takes time for change to take hold. But here we are, calling for the Islamic world to change almost overnight, and then we wonder why they resist. If it took us years to achieve it, it's going to take them years to achieve it, but by trying to bring that change about quickly, it gets interpreted as "forget your values and adopt ours". We expect them to accept that our depictions of the Prophet are freedom of speech, but there has been no real recognition from the West that it is considered blasphemy and upsetting to Muslims, aside from "okay, you're angry, but it's still freedom of speech".

Look at the outrage surrounding Putin's anti-gay propaganda laws in the build-up to the Sochi Olympics. There were threats of a boycott, and politicians telling Russia that they needed to take a more progressive, more enlightened approach. But there was no recognition that Russia is a very conservative country - when Pussy Riot performed the song that got them arrested, the backlash stemmed from the way they performed a song called "God's ****" in a major church (the band even admitted that their lyrics weren't clear, so people took it as an attack on religion, not the attack on Putin that it was intended to be). Homosexuality is barely tolerated (much less accepted) in the cities, and once you get out of the metropolitan areas, there is no tolerance at all. And yet, we had politicians telling Russia that they needed to forget their conservative values and embrace the gay community - but there was no explanation as to why.

I think the same problem applies here. We see these progressive ideas as the positives that they are, but we forget that they take time to embed themselves in a cultural consciousness and come to fruition. Hence, when we push for the adoption of these ideas, we push too hard and it is interpreted as cultural imperialism.

 

[lGNAl]

Let's get one thing straight. There is no total freedom of speech anywhere in the world. In France itself Christian Dior's chief designer John Galliano was charged with "spouting hateful rhetoric" when he appeared in a video announcing that he "loves' Hitler" in Feb 2011. Dior announced they had suspended Galliano following his arrest.

In France, expressing anti-semitic ideas is illegal. So why not make it illegal to express anything that offends all religion's and all race's ? .. Not just semitic.

 

[FoRiZon]

Before you guys are fighting each other for religious or political reasons, here some interesting article i can fully agree on:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-to-keep-terrorists-from-ruining-world/

 

[kennylmao]

@prisonermonkeys I completely agree with what you've said. Change is happening - albeit slow and met with a lot of resistance - with people like Raif Badawi and Malala. It's an uphill battle and it's gonna take time. In the meantime how do we minimize conflict between the Islamic world and the West?

 

[Scaff]

Let's get one thing straight. There is no total freedom of speech anywhere in the world. In France itself Christian Dior's chief designer John Galliano was charged with "spouting hateful rhetoric" when he appeared in a video announcing that he "loves' Hitler" in Feb 2011. Dior announced they had suspended Galliano following his arrest.

In France, expressing anti-semitic ideas is illegal. So why not make it illegal to express anything that offends all religion's and all race's ? .. Not just semitic.

Because causing offence and inciting hatred are different things and the French legal system deals with them as such.

The CE cartoons may be considered offensive and/or insulting to Islam, which is not illegal in France; but they did not incite others to hate Islam (as a French comedian did shortly after they were published and was arrested and charged for) which is illegal in France.

As such I don't see anything at odds with the French law as its written and has been enforced in these cases.

It would also be impossible to write a law that made it "illegal to express anything that offends all religion's and all race's". How do you know what will cause offense? You can't legislate for every set of circumstances and every single word or turn of phrase.

 

[Joel]

Apart from the GMO nonsense I don't have an issue with any of the things you mentioned. What exactly is wrong with gay rights, women having equal rights, diversity and multi-culturalism?

A successful gay rights movement inherently means gay people won't be having children the traditional way (of course this ignores the whole LBT of LGBT), so that'll be less white men having white kids, diversity means that there's less white couples, feminism supposedly means that women will jettison men and have less kids, etc etc. And apparently GMO food and globalization causes infertility or something.

What I got out of it is he's saying that all that stuff is a roundabout way to have a slow ethnic cleansing of white straight people/men from Europe and North America. The whole Daily Mail "UK will have a Muslim majority by 20XX!" stuff or things like in the US where white babies now are less than half of all babies born in the US, and projections in the 2050's that there won't really be a majority race in the US.

 

[Blitz24]

What I got out of it is he's saying that all that stuff is a roundabout way to have a slow ethnic cleansing of white straight people/men from Europe and North America. The whole Daily Mail "UK will have a Muslim majority by 20XX!" stuff.

Well, if we have no more straight people then it may be hard to have children.

 

[Joel]

Well, if we have no more straight people then it may be hard to have children.

We need a straight marriage movement!

 

[Blitz24]

I find it extremely odd for people from some countries to advocate that there is no free speech anywhere when those countries making those statements forbid people of certain religions to be anywhere in their country.

 

[Dotini]

What exactly is wrong with gay rights, women having equal rights, diversity and multi-culturalism?

The alternatives to multiculturalism are ghetto immigration with legal exemptions (setting up communities of immigrants with no requirement for them to adapt at all) and all national documentation printed in every language on Earth, immigration with complete assimilation (banning two people from the same country talking the same foreign language to each other, for example) or no immigration at all.

After a series of moral revelations and epiphanies, the establishment of the western world has installed multiculturalism as the prevailing paradigm. There is really no going back and no alternative.

We see these progressive ideas as the positives that they are, but we forget that they take time to embed themselves in a cultural consciousness and come to fruition. Hence, when we push for the adoption of these ideas, we push too hard and it is interpreted as cultural imperialism.

With all the piety and zeal of the newly converted, the establishment has rushed to implement multiculturalism. The only trouble with this is that it has often left the voters behind. Thus we have created a gap between the establishment and the voters. This may be seen as a potential conflict/contradiction between democracy and a paradigm of multicultural ideals and values codified and enshrined in law. So, at least in the short run, may that which is interpreted as cultural imperialism be also interpreted as tyranny?

 

[Scaff]

After a series of moral revelations and epiphanies, the establishment of the western world has installed multiculturalism as the prevailing paradigm. There is really no going back and no alternative.

Its not exactly new in the UK at least, you could argue that the UK has been Multicultural since the Roman's popped over, with another good bout around 1066 and its really just taken off since then.

 

[Liquid]

Its not exactly new in the UK at least, you could argue that the UK has been Multicultural since the Roman's popped over, with another good bout around 1066 and its really just taken off since then.

Which is where I find the lines drawn by people as to what constitutes 'British' or 'English', or 'Welsh' for me personally, to be rather amusing. It's rather arbitrary.