Pure partisan crap. There’s a difference between acknowledging group differences and recognizing that that doesn’t necessarily mean negative. And don’t even begin to claim that Christianity has been any less violent than Islam. But you conveniently don’t condemn that. No, instead you condemn those who hold views different from yours. How inclusive of you.
You know, it’s ok to admit when you’re wrong.
And when you’re ready to do so, let me know.
Japan has been in the top ten for raw military spending since the 80’s, that’s 30 years. Yet they still spend lots on education. Therefore, saying “it’s easy for Japan to pay for so much education because they’re not spending on defense” is wrong. It just is. Taliking about post WW II isn’t going to change how wrong it is.
Aha, we’re moving the goalposts now. But your original contention was false. Japan has consistently been in the bottom 25% of nations’ military spending by % of GDP from 1988-2015, 1988 being the earliest data this table showed:
World Bank Military expenditure (% of GDP)
But if you want to go to actual (dollar) spending, how do you account for the fact that Japan is currently spending nearly 4x as much on education as on its military (and has historically spent many multiples on education as on defense)? Would you agree that that is a significant amount?
First, I’m an atheist, not christian. I am not here to defend christianity or any other sky fairy belief system, but I can still delineate which belief systems are leading to more illiberal attitudes and murder and chaos in our times. That’s Islam. I don’t care about the death tolls from 600 years ago, I care about today.
I am not even against all muslims, I find this example quite refreshing as he puts some fool multi cultural type in his place in Canada.
He actively defends LIBERAL values and ideas and does not seek to claw back the gains we’ve made over CENTURIES of struggle (by importing even more conservative and retrograde beliefs in the hundreds of thousands or a MILLION in places like Germany, like jesus effing christ it’s so obviously over the top). I have zero quarrel with him, these are the kinds of muslims that are on my side and I want around and want to welcome. Would that that was more common. If it was the referendum to leave would have FAILED.
You know who is not on my side? So called liberals like you who stand silent and grade muslim retrograde attitudes on a curve because they are part of a minority, or perhaps part of a poorer community. Like that is supposed to mean something, like we are EVER supposed to grade ideas and beliefs on a god damn curve. I’d have much fewer issues if the liberals simply stood up and defended our own ideals and did not choose some perverse notion equality of cultural attitudes and ideals over our own.
Oh, I’m the one moving the goalposts am I? That’s a laugh. I think I know what happened. You remebered the little factoid that Japan’s Constitution doesn’t allow them to have a military without realizing they’d done a workaround. Now you’re googling like crazy to save your pride. Ok fine, you’re totally right. All that stuff you just googled proves how dumb I am. You win.
So you’ve now moved to not even attempting to contradict actual evidence. Uh huh. Next…
Nope. You win. Can’t beat a brickwall convinced that it’s a genius debator.
-
Moderate, not liberal. I make decisions on individual issues without having to resort to dogma, unlike certain people.
-
YOU’RE the one grading on a curve. I’M the one saying it’s not right on either side.
-
My ‘perverse notion’ is written on the Statue of Liberty, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. Yours would fit quite comfortably on the KKK Manifesto.
I’m only about 3% English by descent (the rest is Southern Indian), but I’ve never been prouder of my small bit of English heritage. Congratulations to you and to your country for standing up against the globalizers.
The US isn’t really a nation, it’s a multinational state. Anyway, you can define Switzerland not allowing in Germans as ‘racist’ if you want, but you’ve failed to explain why it’s a bad thing. (Or alternatively, why is racism inherently bad?)
If the Swiss want to live in a society with a particular ethnic makeup, good for them. If the Germans don’t fit into it, they have every right to exclude Germans.
Freedom from offense is not in the bill of rights, stop affording it to people who believe illiberal things you disagree with and don’t want to see propagated in society just because it is found among religious minorities. That should not matter and to a lot of people it’s the most important reason for them to be shielded.
Freedom from offense? Please. Hopefully you have heard of this little thing called the rule of law.
You’re advocating discrimination based on religion. Pure and simple. You can rationalize it all you want, but that’s exactly what you’re doing.
ENOUGH! We have plenty of Islam-bashing in threads devoted to that particular theme.
Drop it in this thread and go start a new thread if anyone feels the need to do it.
[ /Moderating ]
It’s a nation. We have many ancestral ethnic groups but a shared culture, which already essentially existed before Independence. Even African-Americans, with their highly distinctive and differentiated subculture, are much more American than African.
See, there’s politics and there’s culture. He’s talking one, you are … not.
I realized your back, good to have you back after being “away”.
This may have been mentioned here and that case I apologize but I’ll point it out in case. Nigel Farage, of UKIP has made a stunning admission during an interview that should infuriate millions.
This stat is pretty revealing:
Sounds like Britain didn’t have a race problem, despite being fairly diverse, in 1993. By 2014, they had a big one. Now we can get on our high horse and condemn Brits for racism, or we can just acknowledge that some people just don’t mesh well. Britain isn’t the United States. It is literally the Anglo-Saxon nation state. It’s not a melting pot, it’s the homeland of the English-speaking people. They felt that mass immigration was threatening their way of life and they didn’t like it.
Will history judge the Brits harshly? Perhaps so, perhaps not. But there does seem to be a double standard here. What if a country like Nepal had an economic boom that attracted millions of immigrants, to the point where native Nepalese became a minority in their own country? Is that something the Nepalese are just supposed to accept? The US is an idea. It doesn’t matter if the US has a white majority, it doesn’t even really matter if we are an English-speaking country. As long as the US maintains it’s commitment to liberty and other American values, we’re all good. But that’s not true of all nations. Most nations are nation states made up of specific people that like having a homeland. Germany is the Germans’ homeland, France is the French people’s homeland, Italy is for Italians, Japan is for Japanese, CHina is for Chinese, etc. We cannot expect whole peoples to willingly consent to the loss of their own homelands.
If we’re going to decide as a general principle that peoples do not have the right to establish states based on common traits like language, race, or religion, then that applies to everyone, not just Europeans. It means the Palestinians have no right to a state, the Kurds don’t, the Tibetans don’t, heck Arabs in general don’t. 100 million Chinese could just flood into the Arabian peninsula, and Arabs can’t complain because that would be racist.