Yeah, it wasn't written clearly. I think what was meant was "A major monthly fashion magazine has 100 people on staff. I am the only staff member for my fashion magazine."
There are limits, practical as well as rhetorical. Not everyone wants to be lectured about how unconditional kindness is their duty and responsibility. Not everyone wants to be told that this kindness needs to come at significant expense at a time when (insert fiscal problems here, such as Greece or the UK) are already occurring.
I don't want to pay extra taxes to help foreigners, I'll gladly donate money to charities. But the second my country started demanding I pay taxes to help refugees, all my income moved over to HK.
And no, I don't have a problem with refugees, I'm glad to help them. I have a problem with the state _forcing_ me to help them.
Yeah I can understand your point. Not nice being told what to do or forced what to do.
When did the UK start demanding taxes to help refugees btw? I'm not aware of this.
:S. Wait, so you'd rather move your money to HK who can use it for what they want than allow some to be paid to help refugees? You're aware that only 1% of the UK budget goes to foreign aid? So of your money being taxed so like 0.0025% of your money will be going to help?
If you knew enough to move your money offshore I would have said you knew enough to know that too, so I presume you had loads of other reasons to move it not just this.
You can be responsible, and it doesn't has to be in the way that allows 'refugees' into your country. People in each country ought to have a choice in that.
True - there's still ways of helping without that.
But what's the fear about letting refugees into the country? Why are people so scared of this? (genuine question =))
It seems to me the only countries whom are scared are the ones who think they're the best, greatest and fear loosing that status. This sounds like idk...country ego? lol.
> But what's the fear about letting refugees into the country? Why are people so scared of this? (genuine question =))
It's the fear of letting people with very, very, different social standards in our countries. And it's warranted.
More than 50% of these refugees believe that whoever leaves the faith of Islam should suffer the death penalty and that adultery should be dealt with stoning to death.
We are not talking about a minority here, we are talking about the majority of them. So, you really shouldn't have to ask why are we afraid of letting them in in such big numbers, the questions should be, how can we do the right thing and still protect the social freedom values we hold dear in the West while doing so.
Perhaps you're being downvoted because your source does not once refer to immigrants, refugees or migrants. You've presented no evidence which suggests that migrants (a particularly self-selecting group) are a uniform sampling of the population of the countries that they hail from. You've made quite an assumption there. If your polls showed the opinions of Muslims already in Western European countries, then maybe we could start to talk about the ramifications of culture clashes. As it stands now, you're looking for what you want to see: "Muslims are scary!".
I'd venture to say that people, in general, that are willing to move (east to west, or west to east) are probably more inclined to adapt to the place where they are going than the ones that stay in their country of origin.
> Seems like you have no interest in providing a source that proves what you're saying? What do Muslims in Western countries actually believe?
The concept of cultural assimilation is not a new one, but maybe it is to you.
No, it seems you have no interest in being coherent. How is a newly arrived refugee/migrant a Muslim from a Western country?
Also, the data VERY CLEARLY states than more than 2/3 of the Muslims living in the European countries in the sample believe that the Sharia should be applied to the Muslims living there (the ones that actually live there, so, the culturally integrated ones according to you).
Care to explain where is your cultural assimilation now?
1. Above, you are lamenting the fact that Western countries allow Muslims in. (I shed a single tear for your cause.)
2. You suggest that "we" (presumably Western Christians) should be afraid of Muslims because the majority believe that "non-believers" should be stoned, etc.
3. You present "evidence" that shows that the majority of Muslims that currently live in particular Middle Eastern countries subscribe to those beliefs.
4. My retort: where is the evidence that Muslims refugees from those same countries to Western countries, actually believe those things at the same rate?
If you give me a poll of Muslim refugees in the USA/Germany/Sweden etc. with results that are similar to the link you've already posted, then maybe you have half a leg to stand on. Until then, enjoy your miserliness.
EDIT: It's called a reply button. I've made no claims regarding the European countries in your example. Save for Russia, those are majority Muslim countries. Islam in Russia is a special case, with certain regions having dense pockets of Muslims. [1] Cultural assimilation would suggest that immigrants will tend towards whatever mainstream beliefs prevail there, in this case Islam. The same cannot be said for most Western European countries, where irreligiousness or Christian social mores prevail. Are you suggesting that Muslim countries kick their own Muslims out? Do you know anything about those countries?
Yes, yes, if you nitpick enough you can bypass all obstacles, like:
1-The fact these are people just arriving Europe, they aren't westernised by any means.
2-The fact that the vast majority of Muslims living in other European countries shown in the study do believe in following the Sharia law.
3-The fact that you claim that these people are in some way different than the majority of the people in their countries, just because you want too.
Perfect, you managed to find that the 1% of the African people that suits your alternate reality are the only refugees/migrants that are arriving in Europe. Well done.
P.S. - 36% of Muslims living in UK believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death. But I'm sure you will find some way to nitpick out of this and tell me that these Muslims don't count. Right?
You have no interest in pursuing a genuine argument. I am not "bypassing those obstacles". This isn't nitpicking, this is logic over xenophobia.
1. They are not westernized when they arrive, but they can and do become westernized over time. [1]
2. Those are Muslim European countries, not "your" type of countries. Your comparison is meaningless, and is different than the one you originally made.
3. They are not different than the majority. I am asking you to prove that they are a representative sample of that country's population. (Still waiting!)
EDIT: You suggest that I am the one cherry picking, but you're the one failing to comprehend an important qualifier on the 36%, namely it is only 16 to 24 year olds, and you are ignoring the rest of the (positive) statistics in that paragraph:
"On religious issues a poll reported that 36% of 16–24 year olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death, compared to 19% of 55+ year old Muslims"
"However around 83% of Muslims are proud to be a British citizen, compared to 79% of the general public, 77% of Muslims strongly identify with Britain while only 50% of the wider population do, 86.4% of Muslims feel they belong in Britain, slightly more than the 85.9% of Christians, 82% of Muslims want to live in diverse and mixed neighbourhoods compared to 63% of non-Muslim Britons"
"A poll reported that 59% of Muslims would prefer to live under British law, compared to 28% who would prefer to live under sharia law."
Frankly, I'm not going to bitch too loudly if I think Muslims should cut themselves some slack regarding converts. What is the threat to you, so long as no action is taken on anyone, if one British Muslim wants to think a British ex-Muslim should be stoned for conversion? Regardless, by no means is the belief you are parading about a "majority" belief. You are shifting the goalposts.
> I'd venture to say that people, in general, that are willing to move (east to west, or west to east) are probably more inclined to adapt to the place where they are going than the ones that stay in their country of origin.
Also, so, know you are telling us that these people choose to migrate West, they are not really forced to do so? It's quite an incoherent sentence from someone defending (as I do actually) that most of these people have no choice but to leave their country because of the war.
But well, we all know coherence and politics don't really go well together with most of the people.
Is it that hard to fathom that there's multiple variables at play in deciding when one decides to leave their homeland for greener pastures? Cultural factors, economic factors, social factors, the presence of war/peace are all things that play into an individual's decision to pack up and move. Different people have difference tolerance for different things.
As a thought experiment: someone with a higher tolerance for different cultures and a lower tolerance for violence is more likely to move sooner than someone with an equivalent tolerance for violence and a lower tolerance for different cultures, no?
> But well, we all know coherence and politics don't really go well together with most of the people.
Mhmm, I can definitely see that. Make better arguments than "Muslims are scary!" and you wouldn't have to resort to underhandedness.
So, migrants are not a good sample of the population of the country they originate from. They are special in some way and by taking a 3000 Km journey trough Africa they are already Westernised even before setting foot in Europe.
Makes perfect sense... I mean, makes perfect sense to try and deny reality in such an obvious way.
Fair enough, they have strong religious beliefs. So do lots of people. Why does that mean Muslims shouldn't be allowed into a given country? Why should Islam be singled out?
Also, apparently from the same survey:
"Furthermore, the willingness of Turkish migrants and their descendents to integrate into German society remains high and is climbing. Whereas 70 percent said in 2010 that they want to "absolutely and without reservations integrate into German society," the new survey found that 78 percent of respondents agreed. Similarly, whereas 59 percent said two years ago that they wanted to belong to German society, 75 percent say so now. Fully 95 percent say that all children with Turkish backgrounds should go to day care facilities so as to learn German prior to entering school."
Seriously, the complete hypocrisy of your comment is too big to actually be true.
So, we are a bunch of xenophobes because we are concerned about people that clearly have social norms that are against our most basic principles of freedom are entering our countries.
But when 62% of Muslims already living in Germany say they want to live only next to other Muslims then, you don't see a problem there and claim they are perfectly integrated.
Seriously, you took hypocrisy to an all new level with that comment.
If we say: We want to live only next to other people that share the basics of European culture = we are a bunch of racist pigs. If they say: We want to live only next to Muslims = nothing to see here, just perfectly integrated and westernised Muslims.
I've never said anything about anyone being racist, so forget the playing the victim card a la "bunch of racist pigs."
Being afraid of outsiders is pretty much the definition of "xenophobia," so yes, you are seemingly a xenophobe. [1] And, self-describedly, an Islamophobe. ("So, you really shouldn't have to ask why are we afraid of letting them in in such big numbers")
I've never claimed perfect integration, I'm claiming that I don't think that letting Muslims into Western countries is going to cause the social fabric to crumble as you seem to think. I would hope that both sides could be a little more accommodating: Western countries allowing disadvantaged refugees safe harbor, and Muslim immigrant communities willing to adapt somewhat to Western standards. There is actual research done on integration in these communities, above and beyond this single poll that you've been hanging on to. [2] Despite what you insist on believing, immigrants do actually adapt to their environments.
Lastly, you seem to want to paint the issue as cut and dry: put special restrictions on entry for Muslims, and social conflict won't arise between people who have differing values. That doesn't solve any issues! What do you do about disaffected Muslim communities already in Western countries? What is the best way to ensure a harmonious society? I think the answer lies somewhere between your claims of "don't let them in" and "let them all in and Sharia law will come to the West." Instead of castigating existing Islamic communities and placing restrictions on them, why not give them a fair shake and see what happens? A "fair shake" meaning one that doesn't single them out for their religious beliefs. (Hey, isn't that one of those "social freedom values" you were talking about?)
36% of Muslims living in UK believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death. But I'm sure you will find some way to nitpick out of this and tell me that these Muslims don't count. Right?
Also, in case you intellectual honesty doesn't allow you to figure out, these are that Muslims that in their great majority are supposed to be already westernised since they actually lived for a long time (or were even born) in the West.
Take off the hate goggles and maybe you'll see that your sarcasm is actually true:
"these are that Muslims that in their great majority are supposed to be already westernised" == "86.4% of Muslims feel they belong in Britain, slightly more than the 85.9% of Christians"
86.4% sounds like a "great majority" (whatever that means), to me.
Oh yes, they are westernised into 36% of them (the young ones, the ones that mostly were already born here) thinking that whoever leaves the religion of Islam should be killed.
Geez, I seriously wonder what is your concept of NOT westernised? 50%, 70%, 100% of them believing in murder in the name of their religion or what? Please let us know if you actually have a number or if anything fits into your version of "westernised"
rmxt I don't think there's much point debating with this guy. He's not interested in learning and sharing his understanding. Only interested in proving he's right and I'm not even sure he knows what he's trying to prove right anymore. He's finding anything he can to backup his argument, not sharing sources that he used to formulate his opinions.
You've actually posted "sources" that disagree with your original claim. In case you've forgotten:
"More than 50% of these refugees believe that whoever leaves the faith of Islam should suffer the death penalty and that adultery should be dealt with stoning to death."
1. You've posted nothing about refugees. The German article talks about Turkish immigrants in general. The Pew poll talks about Muslims in their native lands. Since when are these terms equivalent terms?
2. Even if we take if((Muslims in the UK == refugees) == TRUE), your Wikipedia source explicitly contradicts your original statement. Only 36% of a small age cohort believes that people that leave the faith of Islam should suffer a horrible fate. That number is even less for Muslims outside of that age bracket. Regardless, the group "Muslims in the UK" is not strictly equivalent to "refugees" no matter how much you wish it to be true.
3. Lastly, you disregard all of the information that suggests immigrants actually feel like they belong to their new homelands. Yes, as you've shown, some Muslims have beliefs that Westerners might consider vile (e.g., death penalty for conversion), but the fact of the matter is that in both the UK and Germany the majority of the Muslims polled actually feel like they are part of the country.
I am not trying to make anything disappear: I've acknowledged and addressed every source you have posted, yet you cannot come up with anything more than "Muslims are scary" and "They don't assimilate" despite what actual research shows. Furthermore, you hypocritically suggest that we should single out Muslims for their religious beliefs, in the name of "protect[ing] the social freedom values we hold dear in the West." How can you support "freedom of religion," one of the foremost in the pantheon of social freedoms, while saying that you want to filter immigrants/refugees based on their religion?
In case you missed it here [1]:
"We conclude that Muslim migrants do not move to Western countries with rigidly fixed attitudes; instead, they gradually absorb much of the host culture, as assimilation theories suggest."
I get the impression that you don't step outside your comfort zone very often, much less interact with people of different faiths or races in your daily life. Before you put words in my mouth, I never once suggest we tolerate murder or stoning. People who take action on beliefs like that should be vigorously persecuted. Until then, I don't think it's much different than asking a Christian, "Would a non-believer go to Hell when they die?" That is to say, it's a hypothetical question of faith, not one of action. Feel free to disagree with that opinion, but at least acknowledge that in doing so you're running afoul of the "social freedom values" that you so dearly want to protect.
How many destitute people do you house in your own home? Why only that number and not more? If zero, why is that? What percentage of your income are you donating to support refugees? Why is that percentage not higher?
Ooo, there's a hefty underlying assumption in your post.
I have previously taken people off the street, three times.
I do not currently have anyone living in my home because I have moved back to my disabled Mums which is a 3 bedroom house already with 5 people living there.
Why am I living at my Mums?
I give 100% of my time to helping others and i'm in the process of starting a social enterprise to develop technology to help others in a variety of situations. We've already designed and nearly finish an app to help women in domestic violence situations, tools to help kids with dyslexia, tools for autism. Every penny will go back into creating more tools and technologies to help.
Then I can buy an Island. Yep, i'm not even kidding that's my ambition.
"What percentage of your income are you donating to support refugees? Why is that percentage not higher?" - I currently give no funds to refugees because I put all of my funds into creating other projects to help others in different domains. I feel that investing in these which will generate more income will give more income to help more people.
Caseysoftware - i've had exactly three people crash at my house who were homeless strangers. Only for a few nights each.
I have also got chatting to a homeless dude who turned out to be an artist. He carried on a pen drive pictures he'd created over the last few years but he had no computer access and no way to get them. I said i'd take a look and the next day went into a shop and printed every single picture, paid for it and gave it to him.
I have no problem giving to strangers and not getting anything in return. I get something back naturally, I feel happier that they are happier.
Hence i'm in the process of starting a social enterprise =).
Yes, it is intellectually dishonest. The submission/posted website does suggest inviting refugees into one's own home, but you are the one who suggested that we should compare "fear of refugees on a national level" (ashleyp's post "But what's the fear about letting refugees into the country?") to "fear of letting a stranger into one's home" (your post "How many homeless people do you let crash at your place each night?") That's not a sound comparison. Nowhere has anyone stated that you (the impersonal you) should take refugees in, while I don't.
I am not suggesting that any individual be mandated to keep refugees (or anyone that they don't want) in their home. I am suggesting that pooled resources (taxes, which aren't "someone else's resources") go towards maximizing the benefit for the most number of people, inclusive of immigrants.
I won't be for a long time. I've just moved back into my disabled Mum's house which has 3 small bedrooms and 5 people. Cramped conditions but I work as much as possible on a social enterprise.
In a few years time I dream i'll be able to provide much more housing than space on my couch. There are alternatives to just giving housing.
I take it you've spoken to loads of refuges then and that's exactly what they said then? "Our childrens lives are at risk, but we fancy risking them more to come to a generous country".
I think you misunderstood my point and took it too literally: who cares who's responsible. We can still help people unconditionally without expecting anything in return but within reason.
"Hey man, you're going through a really hard time at the moment. It's not my fault what has happened to you and it's not your fault this has happened to you either. But I would be happy to help you regardless."
Now, wouldn't that be an amazing place to be? Well done Germany, Iceland and the others.
--- Slightly off topic
There's videos of locals all going up and greeting refuges and offering toys, food, donations. I can't imagine how amazing it must feel after years of hardship and death on your door to see happy faces greeting you with open arms. That right there would give me hope and a strong feeling of wanting to do everything possibly to repay the people who helped me in my desperate time of need.
P.s I wasn't a refugee, but I did grow up in refuges as a child and I met and spoke to refugees. This was going back 18 years ago now, much has changed but I met the most incredible and inspirational people there.
The legal codes we're subject to, whether we are or we aren't.
I believe in most locales people are responsible for their own children, but - and correct me if I'm wrong, happy to learn something - I don't think there's anything in there that makes anyone responsible for random strangers on the other side of the planet.
Again, this doesn't have anything to do with whether we should be responsible for random strangers on the other side of the planet.
But - we can choose to be. Or choose not to be. I.e we, individually say if we are or are not. It is our choice.
I choose to be (as much as I can, and I may not be able to do much in these circumstances but I try in others of my life as much as possible and I dedicate most of my time to others).
I choose to be because I believe this builds a better planet and it encourages help rather than a "I'm not helping i'm not responsible. Find the person to blame and make them pay". But how do we ever find the person to blame?
Is it the refugee coming over in hope with their family for a better life?
Is it the people fighting in the war?
The people who started the war?
Who should pay the price?
In my studies of humanity and cultures the place that most inspired me was an island where every child was taken care of by every family on that island. There were no barriers, parents treated every kid as their own.
So, forgive my post if it has come across as convincing people they should take responsibility that was not the case. I was asking a genuine question in the sense, why can we not help? Why does responsibility matter really?
"A serious alternative to the $100,000 four-year college degree wouldn’t even need to be accredited—it would merely need to teach students the skills that startups are desperate for, and that universities couldn’t care less about."
- because everyone should be training to work for a startup?
- why not hire passionate people and train them if university trains them badly? Sounds like people are trying to find perfect developers and of course the competition for those is huge.
Find something i'm incredibly passionate about.
Then I hyperfocus and go for hours and LOVE IT.
Medication interfears with my super productivity because it prevents me mega-hyperfocusing.
