[jonottawa]

mikeh, on 2016-November-28, 16:38, said:

I don't know whether you and nige are simply stupid or deceitful. If this is the only definition you have of the term 'bigotry' then I suggest you access, and try to read, a better source. On the other hand, if you already know that bigotry also includes an attitude of intolerance to others based on such things as skin colour or religion, then you aren't (merely) stupid, but are in fact dishonest. Of course, being stupid doesn't rule out being dishonest, and vice versa. You may well be both.

I asked you some questions. If you ever tire of throwing meaningless insults at me, perhaps you'll answer them.

Here's Webster's Unabridged

A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

I am none of these things. How 'bout you?

[mikeh]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-28, 16:57, said:

I asked you some questions. If you ever tire of throwing meaningless insults at me, perhaps you'll answer them.

I once wasted some of my time providing a detailed response to your uninformed ideas of how I felt about such things as BLM, or human rights in China, etc.

No more. Your 'questions' are premised, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly, on views of the world that differ from any reality I inhabit. I wouldn't spend time arguing with a mentally ill homeless person, because their delusions make real communication impossible. I wouldn't get into a real argument with an 'intelligent software' programme where there was no true consciousness behind the plausible sounding statements. Discussing matters with you is as useless as either of those examples.

Rational discourse in impossible when only one participant is both rational and honest. Since I view you as neither, and since the evidence you have frequently provided here supports that view, I am not going to provide you with more material.


Of course, with you being so easily predictable, you are going to quote this post with the assertion that my words apply to me. Just as Trump did in his infamous 'I'm not a puppet...You're the puppet'.

I'm sure you get a nice little warm feeling of triumph when you write like that, oblivious to how that makes you appear to the adults in the room.

Oh, btw, I don't consider any of the scorn I address to you to be meaningless You, yes. The scorn, not so much.

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2016-November-28, 13:43, said:

It's our right to ignore arguments we don't like but by so-doing we can lose learning opportunities.

Aren't you the same guy who couldn't give me any specific reasons for your argument that the federal debt must be addressed immediately because it is such a large scary-sounding number?

[jonottawa]

hrothgar, on 2016-November-28, 16:35, said:

So, what phase is Indonesia in? Or, for the matter Turkey .

Please enlighten us...

FWIW, Turkey has been dominated by Muslims since roughly 1077
Indonesia has been a Muslim country sine the mid 1500s

Neither has any tradition of Sharia law.
Both have many times the population of any country that does apply Sharia law.

We've got Sharia councils operating in the UK TODAY.

I'm glad to hear there's no Sharia in Indonesia. It's a shame these folks haven't been informed.

I'm not sure why you bring up Turkey's Muslim domination 'since roughly 1077' if they had Sharia there until it was abolished in 1924. For now (and for how long?) that's still the case, but one exception from a country that borders then-Christian & mighty (when it abolished Sharia) Europe hardly disproves the rule.

Here's a great article by Canada's future Prime Minister, Lauren Southern: You’re either an Islamophobe or a misogynist. Pick one

"According to progressive logic, you’d have to be an Islamophobe or a misogynist."

[jonottawa]

mikeh, on 2016-November-28, 18:14, said:

I once wasted some of my time providing a detailed response to your uninformed ideas of how I felt about such things as BLM, or human rights in China, etc.

No more. Your 'questions' are premised, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly, on views of the world that differ from any reality I inhabit. I wouldn't spend time arguing with a mentally ill homeless person, because their delusions make real communication impossible. I wouldn't get into a real argument with an 'intelligent software' programme where there was no true consciousness behind the plausible sounding statements. Discussing matters with you is as useless as either of those examples.

Rational discourse in impossible when only one participant is both rational and honest. Since I view you as neither, and since the evidence you have frequently provided here supports that view, I am not going to provide you with more material.


Of course, with you being so easily predictable, you are going to quote this post with the assertion that my words apply to me. Just as Trump did in his infamous 'I'm not a puppet...You're the puppet'.

I'm sure you get a nice little warm feeling of triumph when you write like that, oblivious to how that makes you appear to the adults in the room.

Oh, btw, I don't consider any of the scorn I address to you to be meaningless You, yes. The scorn, not so much.

Captain Diversity has spoken!

Mike, you crack me up.

You present a silly argument with a GIANT hole in it & then you ONCE AGAIN do the old 'I bet you're going to point out this giant hole in my argument because you're so easily predictable.'

Well I won't point it out, it's there for everyone to see.

I'm just gonna leave this here.

mikeh, on 2016-November-23, 18:23, said:

Imagine that you were a stranger to this thread, and read it for the first time, and noted that pattern. One school of thought provided references and evidence and the other merely stated beliefs. What would you think? Be honest, with yourself at least, if not us.

All emphasis mine.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-28, 11:07, said:

Ken, FWIW, I agree with most of what you say here - but I don't think you go quite far enough. While it is true that change is normally incremental and a single conversation will not change anyone's mind, I believe it is also true there are those who would refuse to change positions regardless of proofs, truths, or evidence. Some of those people are in positions of authority.

While we can have a civil discourse with those whom we disagree, we can only do so if the other side is equally civil. Name-calling does no good, but if there are legitimate reasons to point out that some assumed positions are racist in nature for the necessary reason that the position-holder is not aware of that racists nature and, in fact, consider themselves non-racist, then it should be done.

We all have biases, but unless we know the nature of our biases we cannot ameliorate the effects to produce a more neutral response to our negative ones.

I'll use this as a jumping off place/ And it wil relate to mikeh as well.

I'll cite myself:

Quote

How to apply this to Police/Race? I have said before that I think the starting point should be that everyone acknowledge that the young black male wishes to go out in the evening without being hassled or shot, the cop wants to do the job he is paid to do without being shot, and the community wants crime controlled. Too obvious to need stating? Not at all, I think. If everyone started from that position they might very well find sensible solutions to their shared problem. If they start by calling each other names, then it probably won't go well.

I am strongly suggesting that this would really work. You are of course right that some people would not join in this approach, at least onto right away. But I think that many would. Young males, of any race. often don't much like cops. Cops often don't much like young males. Too much testosterone in both camps. But nobody wants to die. So everyone gets together around the question "How do we do this so that it works, or at least so that it works better than it is working now?".


As cherdano pointed out, I am a not yet dead white male and I have limited direct experience. I am guessing the same applies to many on this thread. I am guessing that you are also a not yet dead white male. Of course this is the internet. You might be a robot. Or a dog. But I am guessing human and probably a white male.

There is a natural desire to see the problem between police and young black males improve. Neither you nor I can actually do it. However. The principals have an extremely strong interest, direct and personal, in improving the situation. To the extent that we on the sidelines can do anything at all that is useful, I think we could encourage direct conversation at the very local level. Everyone there has a strong interest in how it goes. We should wish them well and then, for the most part, back off. We are not the principals. I am neither young not black. I am also not a cop. And I don't live in the community where the problems are intense.

We can help. We can support police training. We can support community programs.Very importantly we can support education. And we can back off on the name calling. And wish the cops and the African-American community the very best in working through this. It's important for all of us, but it is of critical importance to the principals.

There are many other areas of conflict today where my thoughts fall along the same general line.

[hrothgar]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-28, 18:20, said:

We've got Sharia councils operating in the UK TODAY.

I'm glad to hear there's no Sharia in Indonesia. It's a shame these folks haven't been informed.

I'm not sure why you bring up Turkey's Muslim domination 'since roughly 1077' if they had Sharia there until it was abolished in 1924. For now (and for how long?) that's still the case, but one exception from a country that borders then-Christian & mighty (when it abolished Sharia) Europe hardly disproves the rule.

There are any number of countries in which groups of individuals chose to adopt elements of Sharia Law to govern their own personal interactions.
[This is no different than the way in which observant Jews chose to use to use the Halakhah to govern their own interactions]

As you note, this happens on occasion in both North American and Western Europe, however, no one in their right mind would claim that these countries are following Sharia Law.
I would argue that Turkey and Indonesia are slightly more extreme versions of the same basic example.
Both have very strong secular traditions and the strain of Islam that was traditionally followed are very different from Wahhabism.

I do believe that there are a small number of states to do try to govern themselves using a strict form of Sharia Laws.
The most prominent examples are probably Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
Of these, only Iran is a major population center and even Iran has less that 5% of the Worlds Muslims.

FWIW, Attaturk's decision to establish a strictly secular Republic had very little to do with Christianity.

The primary motivation was a deliberate attempt to distance the Turkish Republic from the Ottoman Empire. Towards the end of the Ottoman Empire, the government attempted to pull the "Caliph" card to rally various subject peoples against the Allied Powers. [This failed miserably and also served to pissed off the Young Turks]. In addition there was a very strong admiration of some Enlightenment values including a general rejection of Christianity.

[Just to make things clear, one of my undergraduate degrees is in Turkish history. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about]

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-November-28, 18:53, said:

I am strongly suggesting that this would really work. You are of course right that some people would not join in this approach, at least onto right away. But I think that many would.

If one is looking at specifically the police/black community problems then I think your approach has lots of merit.

Looking at a broader landscape, I am coming to a different conclusion. The more I read about Trump and his cohorts and supporters, the more I am coming to a conclusion that what we are looking at is more on the lines of a war mentality with a victorious army interested only in pillaging and plundering - there is certainly no interest in simply "governing". I understand to the victor go the spoils, but these people want much more than that - they want to rewrite all the rules and change the game to fit their purposes. Frankly, they are dangerous.

I read today that someone who supposedly knows Bannon well quoted Bannon as having no problem with minority voter suppression, going so far as to suggest that only property owners should be allowed to vote. Trump himself seems to have no informational foundation other than what he reads on the internet and in tweets and is supposedly easily swayed by whomever he is speaking with at the moment.

We have continually underestimated Trump and the vitriol and bitterness of his cohorts and followers - not supporters - almost cult-like in their devotion to Trump and their hatred for everyone opposed to him. I think it would be a mistake of epic proportions for the Democrats and Independents to work with the coming administration as this is shaping up as an ideological war for the very foundations of our country.

I, like MikeH, also think it is a mistake of historic proportions to grant Trump and his cohorts any legitimacy and hold them in the disdain that they have so well earned. Regardless of the electoral college, the majority of Americans are horrified and disgusted by the idea of Trump and Co. in the White House.

Trump wants us to forget and forgive. The answer is no. Some lines cannot be crossed. You cannot act like a degenerate dirt bag and then expect to be afforded civility because you won an election. Character matters.

So, when it comes to police and minorities, I agree. When it comes to Trump followers and cohorts, I say no. We should never grant them a shred of equanimity with civil humans because they deserve only treatment that is in keeping with their nature, not ours - and we should never reduce our national tolerances to legitimize their intolerance, hatred, spite, and bitterness.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-28, 22:06, said:

If one is looking at specifically the police/black community problems then I think your approach has lots of merit.

Looking at a broader landscape, I am coming to a different conclusion. The more I read about Trump and his cohorts and supporters, the more I am coming to a conclusion that what we are looking at is more on the lines of a war mentality with a victorious army interested only in pillaging and plundering - there is certainly no interest in simply "governing". I understand to the victor go the spoils, but these people want much more than that - they want to rewrite all the rules and change the game to fit their purposes. Frankly, they are dangerous.

I read today that someone who supposedly knows Bannon well quoted Bannon as having no problem with minority voter suppression, going so far as to suggest that only property owners should be allowed to vote. Trump himself seems to have no informational foundation other than what he reads on the internet and in tweets and is supposedly easily swayed by whomever he is speaking with at the moment.

We have continually underestimated Trump and the vitriol and bitterness of his cohorts and followers - not supporters - almost cult-like in their devotion to Trump and their hatred for everyone opposed to him. I think it would be a mistake of epic proportions for the Democrats and Independents to work with the coming administration as this is shaping up as an ideological war for the very foundations of our country.

I, like MikeH, also think it is a mistake of historic proportions to grant Trump and his cohorts any legitimacy and hold them in the disdain that they have so well earned. Regardless of the electoral college, the majority of Americans are horrified and disgusted by the idea of Trump and Co. in the White House.

Trump wants us to forget and forgive. The answer is no. Some lines cannot be crossed. You cannot act like a degenerate dirt bag and then expect to be afforded civility because you won an election. Character matters.

So, when it comes to police and minorities, I agree. When it comes to Trump followers and cohorts, I say no. We should never grant them a shred of equanimity with civil humans because they deserve only treatment that is in keeping with their nature, not ours - and we should never reduce our national tolerances to legitimize their intolerance, hatred, spite, and bitterness.

Hey! We could find much agreement.

The election of Trump will be an enormous disaster. I was 21 when Gary Powers was shot down flying a spy plane over Russia and I remember how shocked people were that President Eisenhower's early explanation of what had taken place was a total lie. Time marches on. We have elected a man as president who does not regard truth as having any relevance at all. Bannon might or might not have suggested, might or might not believe, that only property owners should vote. it sounds like fake news to me. But the more basic fact is that trying to work through what Trump means by what he says is hopeless.

So what should we do? Well, we should not believe anything Trump says, but that's what we should not do.. What should we do? I'm not up for hiding illegal immigrants in my basement to keep them from being deported. I could, however, see myself as supporting a defiant local stance against using the local police to help track down immigrants whose status I don't know. Ideally, the federal government and the local government have the same goals. Maybe not this time.

Have we elected a bigot or a con man or a nut? Some combination of all three, I think. Reality is that the people who, for the moment, have the power don't really care what I think. I doubt that they care all that much what the guy in the factory thinks either, but that will take a while to play out.

Our most urgent task is to protect democracy. I have never before said that or thought that after an election that did not go as I hoped. This stuff, that any vote that does not go Trump's way is rigged, is a serious threat and needs to be seen as very serious. We need all the friends we can get in this concern.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2016-November-29, 07:20, said:

The election of Trump will be an enormous disaster. I was 21 when Gary Powers was shot down flying a spy plane over Russia and I remember how shocked people were that President Eisenhower's early explanation of what had taken place was a total lie.

I was younger, but I was one of the shocked.

It's a long way down to our president-elect, like a bad dream of a slow-motion disaster in the making, when you can't move to stop it. That's the way it was for me in the mid-sixties when we escalated in Vietnam, and in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq. No one knows exactly how the current situation will play out, but it's going to be bad.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-November-29, 07:20, said:

Hey! We could find much agreement.

The election of Trump will be an enormous disaster. I was 21 when Gary Powers was shot down flying a spy plane over Russia and I remember how shocked people were that President Eisenhower's early explanation of what had taken place was a total lie. Time marches on. We have elected a man as president who does not regard truth as having any relevance at all. Bannon might or might not have suggested, might or might not believe, that only property owners should vote. it sounds like fake news to me. But the more basic fact is that trying to work through what Trump means by what he says is hopeless.

So what should we do? Well, we should not believe anything Trump says, but that's what we should not do.. What should we do? I'm not up for hiding illegal immigrants in my basement to keep them from being deported. I could, however, see myself as supporting a defiant local stance against using the local police to help track down immigrants whose status I don't know. Ideally, the federal government and the local government have the same goals. Maybe not this time.

Have we elected a bigot or a con man or a nut? Some combination of all three, I think. Reality is that the people who, for the moment, have the power don't really care what I think. I doubt that they care all that much what the guy in the factory thinks either, but that will take a while to play out.

Our most urgent task is to protect democracy. I have never before said that or thought that after an election that did not go as I hoped. This stuff, that any vote that does not go Trump's way is rigged, is a serious threat and needs to be seen as very serious. We need all the friends we can get in this concern.

This should be a warning to us all.

[barmar]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-28, 16:54, said:

It sounds like you're accusing me of being too tolerant (cultural relativism) and not tolerant enough (advocating war over cultural differences) at the same time. Please pick one and I'll try to answer you.

I think I misinterpreted what you meant by "We used to fight wars over this". I took it to be celebrating that time, but now I realize you were just using it to indicate how important cultural differences are.

But cultural differences are not a blanket license for everything, there are some practices that shouldn't be tolerated. It's fine if different countries have different holidays, but they can't use culture as an excuse for human rights violations. There are grey lines, of course -- capital punishment is hotly debated in the countries that still have it (yes, that's us in the US).

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-28, 18:15, said:

Aren't you the same guy who couldn't give me any specific reasons for your argument that the federal debt must be addressed immediately because it is such a large scary-sounding number?

No

[jonottawa]

The conversation seems to have drifted off into the weeds (imo.) I appreciate barmar's gracious reply to my last post.

I'll just summarize my own position on immigration, which I think is close to Trump's (for those who pretend Trump's position is incoherent. It's only 2 pages long and summarizes ALL of his priorities for his first 100 days, maybe give it a read?)

A nation has the right to enforce its borders and the duty to enforce its laws. A nation's immigration law should serve the national interest of that nation and the best interest of that nation's citizens. A nation has the right to deport people who snuck across its borders (or overstayed visas) and live there illegally. A nation has the right to deny social services to people living within its borders illegally. A nation has the right to force its large employers to ensure the legal status of its employees.



Now, if you disagree with any of that, you don't really believe in the idea of nationhood at all, imo. Which is entirely your right, of course, but it would be a courtesy and save time if you'd just come right out and SAY it.

Now, my own belief, which may or may not (it probably doesn't) reflect Trump's is that 1st world countries should dramatically REDUCE immigration. I believe that for the following reasons:

1. Environmental (lower population means less environmental damage)
2. Economic (as manufacturing and other good jobs disappear, we don't need a large influx of workers as we did in the past when jobs were plentiful.)
3. Cultural (I want to preserve my culture in my homeland. I don't want people from foreign cultures moving to my country & trying to make my country's culture better reflect their culture. If they love their culture as much as I love my culture, they should stay in their homelands where I fully support their right to preserve their culture.)

We should learn from the mistakes of the UK or Sweden or Germany & not flood our nation with people who don't share our culture or our values. It's much easier to change our mind later & let more people in (if we can see that this experiment has succeeded in other countries) than it is to get rid of people once we've let them in.

[jonottawa]

Now, as for Islam. I read this article last night and I found it fascinating. Particularly the section that begins about half-way down: A Personal View of Sharia. I can see why the religion is so appealing and successful. I personally find many aspects of the religion appealing.

So I have nothing against Islam per se. I just don't think it is compatible with Western beliefs. And so I strongly oppose flooding Western countries with Muslims, hoping against all history and evidence that Muslims and kafirs will peacefully live side by side in the long run. Let them live peacefully in their nations & let us live peacefully in ours. And if we want to visit back and forth, FANTASTIC!

This kind of statement would have been greeted with 'Well, duh.' a hundred years ago but for some reason it needs to be stated (and is even attacked as intolerant) in the current year.



Islamic State claims responsibility for Ohio University attack

[hrothgar]

Jon

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with you means or methods, I merely disagree regarding your choice of targets. You don't believe that muslims and non muslims should share this continent. Me, I'm not at all happy that I need to spend my life dealing with a racist piece of crap like yourself.

From my perspective I'd be much happier sharing my town with a random Muslim then with you. And if our society ever does get to the point where we are legally discriminating against people based on their beliefs, I'll do my best to see you hoist on your own petard.

In the mean time, ill merely wish that you have a short and unpleasant life full of personal failure

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2016-November-29, 11:35, said:

No

Sure you are. I remember the smirk that disappeared under close questioning.

[mike777]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-28, 15:44, said:

Now, unlike Mike, I am not uniformly intolerant of intolerance. If people from foreign cultures want to do things that I find bizarre or unsettling in THEIR countries, that's THEIR business. I don't claim to have a monopoly on truth. But nations have EVERY right to exclude people who are completely incompatible with their culture & customs. That's the whole POINT of nations in the first place! We used to fight WARS over this stuff but we've been brainwashed & shamed into surrendering without a fight.

na·tion
ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: nation; plural noun: nations

a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

OK OK, nations have a "right" to do whatever they can get away with. But not sure the issues here are "rights"..

In the Case of your CaNADA AND immigration what position do you advocate?

Clearly Canada has different cultures and customs today in one country, Canada allows people to move to Canada that have a different culture or set of customs than you practice so I am not sure what your point is.


If your point is Canada could someday become a theocracy, sure it could some day. It might also some day be run by robots and AI to a large and practical degree.

[Winstonm]

I found this opinion piece from an educated white woman who voted for Trump to be quite demoralizing.

Quote

In the early days, I never considered Trump a serious contender. But as the campaign evolved, a significant change in mindset emerged. Listening more intently to the messages of both Clinton and Trump along with analyzing revelations from WikiLeaks and the FBI investigation led me to believe the system was way beyond badly broken.

It became clearer and clearer that we needed to shake things up and restore people’s trust. We needed a “bull in the china shop” to break some glasses, not someone who needed to shatter the glass ceiling.

While most uncomfortable with some of Trump’s inappropriate and disturbing rhetoric, I like many others chose to take his comments seriously but not literally, as Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal columnist, so aptly described. After eight years of ineffective leadership, it was time for an epochal change.

My biggest priorities in this election were the economy and national security. Trump’s pro-growth agenda will address much-needed tax reform, massive challenges of the Affordable Care Act and it will restore equilibrium between accountability and burdensome regulation. Unleashing the potential of individuals and businesses will create greater prosperity and innovation.

It is clear from the woman's words that both Julian Assange and James Comey affected the outcome of the election, meaning, in the case of Assange, that Russia affected the outcome. It also means the the opinion page of the WSJ, a literary form of Fox News, is being listened to as if it were non-biased and valid. And finally, it means that the Right Wing propaganda has been repeated long enough and hard enough to be assumed "truth" by many casual observers.

I think the U.S.A. is screwed. The attack on the New Deal and the Great Society has begun with Ayn Randians in charge of the outcome. Things are indeed bleak.

[jonottawa]

mike777, on 2016-November-29, 15:11, said:

OK OK, nations have a "right" to do whatever they can get away with. But not sure the issues here are "rights"..

In the Case of your CaNADA AND immigration what position do you advocate?

Clearly Canada has different cultures and customs today in one country, Canada allows people to move to Canada that have a different culture or set of customs than you practice so I am not sure what your point is.


If your point is Canada could someday become a theocracy, sure it could some day. It might also some day be run by robots and AI to a large and practical degree.

Just to be clear, you were not the Mike that post was directed at.

I think I've answered your question already, quite clearly, on this page.

...

Edit: I'll add this: These are the type of people I advocate NOT allowing to move to Canada. (If you read the comments, a lot of people agree with me.)

"A year after arriving in Canada, the first wave of resettled Syrian refugees is about to face a whole new round of challenges.

December begins the so-called Month 13, when the government-sponsored refugee package, with its monthly living allowance, ends for many families. They either have to support themselves or fall back on provincial social assistance. ...

But Tonbari, 30, is struggling to pick up enough English to secure work in the construction business. Between language classes and getting his family settled, he hasn't found a job — and there's another baby on the way."

This sort of appalling abuse of Canada's generosity (and naiveté and narcissistic Trudeauian virtue signaling) is what makes my blood boil. And it's entirely predictable. These aren't the immigrants of old, willing to sacrifice and work hard to create a brighter future in a sparsely populated New World teeming with (incredibly arduous and low-paying) jobs, these are opportunistic people looking for free stuff. Enough already!

...

What Canada currently allows doesn't mean it ought to be allowed. Before the 1960's we had a very sensible immigration policy. And yet they changed that policy. Without a theocracy, or robots or AI even!