Sure, if that’s you define the word “immigrant.”
See, earlier, magellan01 asked you the following question:
And you answered as follows:
Clearly magellan01’s question was not limited to Muslims who had moved to Europe but were not born there. So I assumed (without giving it much thought) that you were using the word “immigrant” in a broader sense. It now seems that you were using the word immigrant more narrowly, which is fine but it seems that you have not answered magellan’s question.
Err, they are a bit more than intolerant. And there is a political reluctance to address this because that might look racist.
An excellent point, and one all too often overlooked. I think it makes many people uneasy, whatever their politics.
That you at times have a tendency to butcher posts when replying to them, as per #69 & #71. That’s part of a larger pattern of starting to nitpick technicalities, bringing up your home-made debating rules, etc, thereby eventually effectively killing useful debate. My observations.
The likelyhood of “conflict” would be “a lot greater”.
Before we proceed any further there are a couple of things I’d like to straighten about what you really said here:
What type of conflict? Can we narrow that down?
What does “a lot greater” mean? 75%? 50%? 25%? 10%? Can you give me a ballbark level proposal?
Because if “a lot greater” might mean 1% and “conflict” might mean talking heads bitching on the morning shows it’s not obvious why we should feel concern (as citizens of a democracy rather than as partisans, that is)…
Yes, your rules.
What you seem to have forgotten is that for us to claim straw-man we have to believe there’s premeditation or intent to misrepresent your position in order to easier knock it down.
In the absence of premeditation we have a misunderstanding.
Can you prove premeditation? Can you make a strong case, or any case at all for premeditation by pointing to what the both of us have written here? Or - if you can’t - do you still believe there was premeditation, IOW do you feel that you have reason to assume bad faith from me?
E.g., do you subscribe at all to Huntingtons theory as put forth in aCoC? Are there any circumstances where you think we should be worried about such clashes between muslim immigrants and natives? If there are, what circumstances are they?
#84, A clarification
In 2) the percentages are meant to denote actual likelyhood of “conflict”, not quantification of the increase in likelyhood (as there’s no defined baseline, that wouldn’t really tell us anything).
Sorry, but I’m the one who gets to interpret my own rules. That said, it’s true that sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between intentional misinterpretation and accidental misinterpretation. It’s also possible that I am in error and the person I am engaged with has characterized my position reasonably.
This is why I usually give people the opportunity to either quote me where I took the claimed position or admit that I did not take the position and apologize. If an honest debater accidentally misrepresented my position, he will promptly admit the mistake and apologize. You however, have done neither.
You claimed that I took the position that “there is a clash coming.” However, I took no such position. When I pointed this out to you, you did not retract your statement or apologize.
Thus, I will no longer engage with you.
Goodbye, liar.
Oh my. Brazil84, you are indeed a huge dick* but of the most pathetic sort. If you think that anyone’s gonna take this as anything but you running away and hiding in the face of getting called on your chronic tendency to trade in sophistry your gravely mistaken.
*word used sparingly.
Hey Brazil is back. Gonna be a bumper crop of dipshits this season.
hey, hey, hey! not all of us are small minded, frightened, bigoted, hate mongers. There are a lot of us who just don’t give a feck, to many problems of our own to deal with, don’t have time to care about strangers lives and choices enough to be bigots. Fer fecks sake, some of us bogstompers are good people. Drunk, maybe, but good people.
thank god for 3 irish grandparents.
And who’s recruiting? The Germans did, for a while and mistakenly assuming that there would be no mixed marriages and nobody wanting to stay for a long time, but for other countries the non-European immigrants are either from ex-colonies (which may mean more ease to immigrate than people from non-ex-colonies, plus they already speak the language) or indocumenteds who can’t be returned home because nobody can figure out where the heck “home” is.
I remember after 9/11, when there were some “on the left” (myself included, to some extent) who, while condemning the attacks themselves, also raised the point that perhaps it was an opportunity re-examine our policies concerning the Middle East that had made these people angry enough to attack us. People who expressed that view were criticized in much the same way that Pat Buchanan is being criticized here, though I will stop short of saying “and rightly so.”
I disagree with Pat Buchanan on the subject of immigration, but knowing who he is it certainly doesn’t surprise me that he is for less of it. But if we agree that he has a right to his own (wrong) opinion, then his calling for using the attacks in Norway as ann opportunity to re-examine immigration policies in the West does not appear all that different to me from what some people I agree with said after 9/11.
In other words, I feel that his views are wrong, but I think I would make myself a hypocrite to vilify him for speaking of the Norway attacks in a way similar to how I once spoke of the 9/11 attacks.
Kyomara, you think Breivik came out of nowhere? There are politicians in more than one European parliament who share his views on Muslim immigrants(but not his views on methods). In fact, the party he used to be a member of is Norway’s second largest party. If there was a genuine need to re-examine immigration politics there are plenty of people who are willing and able to do so.
Kyomara,
Pat Buchanan happens to be one of the original promoters (from the 1990s and forward) of the specific conspiracy theory that Breivik appealed to when explaining his motive for doing what he did, facing the Norwegian court the other day.
We have to assume that Pat is by now well aware of that fact, but he does not transparently account for it.
For there to be an analogy between your reaction to 9/11 and Buchanans to Breivik, you’d have to have been one of the originators and early proponents of Takfiri Salafism.
Assuming you weren’t you can feel perfectly free to feel that Buchanan is a huge asshole.
And here’s a cite that Breivik blamed “Cultural Marxism” facing court:
[QUOTE=Google Translate/Svd]
When Judge Kim Heger read the district court’s decision, he quoted extensively from the motives Anders Behring Breivik said he had for the bombing and the shots on Utøya.
-According to Breivik, he wanted to “save Norway and Western Europe from Cultural Marxism and from the Muslims take over,” said Kim Heger.
[/QUOTE]
Why would you want to point out that this murderer was right?
I’ll have you know that that in no way justifies his actions!
magellan01, that’s a joke that might fly on freerepublic, but here? Really now, do be sensible…
Why don’t you read through the threads on “Cultural Marxism” we’ve had so far, lay off the booze for a while, and get back to us when you’re all read up & sobered up 