musterion
Well-known member
Honesty.
“diversity is more important than your security.”
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Honesty.
I know, right? Given that the thread isn't about you, what does it matter?
I KNOW! And that's such a precious response ... though it would be better aimed at those who asked the non relevant question.
If you look up "Jews are evil" you'll find a few websites too. And they'll tell you all sorts of things that aren't true. Some of them have books.
Would you accept from a student writing a paper on a serious subject an unsubstantiated claim gleaned from a website? No, source matter matters. You don't get objective data from stormfront, or any sites trading in alarmist rhetoric, etc.
I don't have to. You just did.
Frankly, what it comes down to, TH, is as follows:
1. I don't even think that "objective evidence" which is in accordance with your standards is even necessary. There's sufficient evidence playing itself out in the media. I don't need statistics to see that Muslim immigrants are acting differently from other immigrants. You don't need to statistics to recognize that Muslims in the middle east act a whole lot differently from other people. You have to be blind not to see this.
Combined with their Islamic "beliefs," their behavior historically, etc.? It's a no-brainer.
2. I question from the get-go any studies which would be in accordance with the kind of criterion of "objective evidence" that you want. Like sociologists don't have an agenda? I took an introductory sociology course as an undergrad, and one of the things that I learned, I believe, in the first few weeks is that a large portion of modern sociologists, if not most of them, are social activists. They tend, by and large, to be liberal social activists.
I don't think so. Here is the article I read.
They just said, flat out, "there's no link between the two, people." Basically, they came out and tried to lie to everyone in order to prevent public opinion from turning against Muslim immigrants.
Never mind the fact, that German politicians have already admitted that there is, in fact, a link between the two: the people going around assaulting and raping people were Muslim immigrants!
And you want me to trust liberal social activist sociologists to do fair and unbiased studies? Don't think I don't know the game in the social sciences: if it's in accord with the liberal humanist agenda, there'll be studies for days. If it's against the liberal humanist agenda, you'll be attacked seven ways from Sunday and discredited simply for thinking it worth studying.
I recall making a thread a while back about a guy who wrote his doctoral dissertation which depicted Mexican immigrants and their children in a bad light. I believe the title of the thread was "Mexican immigrants are stupid and bad for America?" or something of that nature.
But again, I don't need an academic study to know that Mexicans and Jews weren't conducting the Cologne attacks.
If I saw a soccer riot, I'd assume it was a soccer problem. Given the fact that it was Muslim immigrants conducting the attacks, and there were no other apparent explanatory factors to explain their behavior...I think you understand my point.
Furthermore, most terrorist activity worldwide is Islamic. But it's a good idea to let in Muslims?
This guy a terrorist too, TH?
What about these people?
| Moderate Muslims | |
In the words of Samuel L. Jackson:
"Enough is enough! I've had it" with these...Muslims in the...West.
You're begging the question. Your opinion is that Muslim immigrants have a right to be in the West. What is your proof of this? If you appeal to the law, I will tell you that the law can be changed.
I speak in terms used by St. Thomas Aquinas himself:
"On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly" (Summa Contra Gentiles, book 1, chapter 6).
The continuing barbarity and savagery of that miserable people may be gleaned both from their present behaviors, as well as from history.
Expel the Muslim invaders!
It's not "my" standard. Did you major/concentrate in electives before grad school? Did you get a degree in tapestry or French art?
Not if you understand anything, literally anything about proper methodology for...you know what, forget it. It was clear enough when you eschewed inquiry for anecdote that there's nothing rational about your approach. You are an educated man who might as well not be on the point.
Yes, you do. Or you do if what's true matters instead of what you apparently want to be true.
Good luck with your spin the outlet approach to what you believe.
I omit the rest because literally nothing said by someone who doesn't believe in a rational methodology as an approach has much that's worth examining. Go stand on a street corner and yell about the Jews or the Muslims or whatever else gets your goat. Good luck. Take your skewed justifications and let me know when you want to sue whoever gave you a sheepskin.
Thought about French, then doubled in psychology.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
isn't psych a prerequisite for understanding french art?
“diversity is more important than your security”
"The New Colossus" was a sonnet by American poet Emma Lazarus (1849–1887), written in 1883. In 1903, the poem was engraved on a bronze plaque and mounted inside the lower level of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.
Isn't "diversity" a fundamental part of American culture?
Last edited:
'Diversity' has been divinized to some degree in which people errantly think it's something required of a flourishing society.
It is not. 'Diversity' is something that happens on it's own, not something to be purposed and forced.
America has always been diverse, but not nearly to the extent it is now, and there's some ulterior goal to make it a complete, homogenized mix of every type of person that exists.
I don't buy it. It's propaganda. An agenda for the Left to ransack the Right, and became redundant even before it's intent was obvious which didn't take long to realize.
Last edited:
In hindsight, it occurs to me that, given my presentation, what I've said probably comes off as no different in content than someone utterly uneducated and committed to the right's disdain of academia and intellectuals might have said.
I think that my mode of presentation is largely to blame for this. So, to be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of irrationalism or in favor of acting without good reasons, nor am I arguing in favor of believing things without good reasons (though, the fact that a protestant would have a problem with this strikes me as utterly amusing...what did you say that your religious sect is, again?
).In order to sound less like an irrationalist nutball, I am going to try to express myself in a more coherent and systematic way:
1. As Aristotle says, for any given x which is to be proven, the mode of proof must be suitable for that x. Thus, a proof in ethics and a proof in mathematics will differ in kind, as will the degree of "scientific" certainty (I mean "scientific" in the sense of the Latin scientia or the Greek episteme, i.e., knowledge gained by means of demonstrative reasoning). [In this, in fact, we see a great error of Cartesian philosophy; Descartes attempts to transpose the method of geometry on everything; Spinoza is even worse.]
2. For any given thing, there may be different kinds of "proofs" or "evidence" are possible, of equal, greater or less degree (in relationship to each other) of ability to give us certainty with respect to that of which they are proof. Consider the following (though, of course, I make no claim about their truth value):
1. Obama says he was born in Hawaii.
2. Obama's mother says he was born in Hawaii.
3. This official birth certificate says Obama was born in Hawaii.
4. Here is a video tape which shows Obama being born. There is Obama's mother holding her driver's license. Furthermore, the camera man is proceeding to walk outside and show all sorts of Hawaiian landmarks and scenery. The video tape does not appear to be a forgery or edited in any way.
If true, 1-4 all present some degree of evidence and reason for belief in the proposition: "Obama was born in Hawaii." Of course, they don't all present the same degree of probability; nonetheless, even though 1 is the weakest evidence, it does provide us practical reason for belief, unless this belief is called into question and evidence is presented to the contrary.
Chances are Obama's friends didn't seriously entertain the possibility that Obama was not born in Hawaii, even given the vehement objections of the birthers, and this, even though they only held their belief based on Obama's testimony.
Was the belief of Obama's friends "irrational"? No. They had a certain degree of probable evidence for the truth of the proposition.
It is in this way that I insist on different kinds of evidence for the Islamic question. It is not necessary to read scientific journals to come to a reasonable opinion on Muslim immigration. There are different degrees of evidence, different kinds of "proof."
3. In the absence of the "greater" form of proof (either absolutely or relatively to the person who is weighing the evidence), it is reasonable to form a belief based on a "lesser" form of proof, if that form of proof or evidence is suitable to the subject matter (see the first bolded point).
Thus, consider the claim: "Islamic immigration has caused the rape rate to increase in Europe."
For this, we may take the following, among others, as evidence:
1. A statistical survey
2. A wikipedia article on the subject
3. A news article on the subject
Note, I don't claim that these forms of evidence are equivalent in evidential force.
My only point here is that it is not unreasonable for me to believe a claim often made by conservative sources, even though I haven't undergone further research. Granted, if evidence to the contrary is presented, or if these sources are called into question, it is not sufficient for me simply to insist: "But they said it!" Further evidence is required.
The assumption is, of course, that conservative sources probably wouldn't repeat something over and over again if there weren't at least a grain of truth in what they are saying, if they had absolutely no reason for saying it.
Of course, direct statistical surveys likely can and should countervail over second hand news sources or encyclopedia articles. However, when such things exist, but are not available to us, it is not unreasonable to base our opinions on the encyclopedia articles or news articles.
It is likewise in this context that I throw doubt on the motivation of the liberal activist sociologists.
4. As Aristotle says in the Posterior Analytics, an induction ordinarily may not be made except through observance of a plurality of instances. There are, however, exceptions to this, namely, when cause and effect are plainly evident in the single case.
If you were standing on the moon, Aristotle says, and you could see the moon blocking the sun's light and casting a shadow on the earth, you would immediately recognize the cause of that kind of eclipse.
This is why I keep insisting on the Cologne incident, on the public displays of violence and misconduct of the Muslims in the middle east, etc. They aren't "isolated" incidents." We're talking about massive crowds of people.
[This holds true especially when we are talking about qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) differences. You don't need a statistical survey to recognize that A is different qualitatively from B].
I think that these remarks should provide a preliminary basis for understanding my previous points.
Strike the "probably" and you're spot on.
Well, if by that you mean the words you used and methodology you approved, yes.
In order, you were and to some extent, despite effort to reframe it, still are...and "good reasons" is the sort of loose phrase that has no real teeth to it. An unlettered man (and, apparently, the lettered variety on occasion) might find an anecdote or two sufficient for the rule, without control considerations or any larger understanding.
Well, I often find when someone is comfortable with one irrational bias it usually doesn't exist in isolation.(though, the fact that a protestant would have a problem with this strikes me as utterly amusing...what did you say that your religious sect is, again?
Except in this case you rest on anecdotal evidence that can't establish a probability if you understand statistical models. It's literally of no value absent correlation. And the entire question rests on the numbers.
It's necessary to have the data, not anecdotes and skewed rhetorical speculation.
And given you hadn't even bothered to look, simply strung together a couple of inflammatory bits and ran up the anti-Muslim flag, your distinctions are of no consequence. You can't claim a lesser necessity from a position of willful ignorance in any event.
It is a statement laden with undemonstrated assumption. Though really it's mostly a cover. What the writer would actually be saying is Islam promotes rape, if you consider the posit. Else, you should expect any increase in population to carry with it an increase in crime, unless the argument or expectation is that all immigrants are saints.
A lie, oft repeated, remains a lie and a man who understands bias inherent in "liberal" or "conservative" sources has reason to make serious inquiry or he is nothing more than a parrot and his opinion should be taken as seriously.
A grain of truth could be nothing more than immigration brings an increase in crime, which would then condemn Muslims without real cause.
As I said, first research and then conclude.
And if you were blinded and grabbed the tail of an elephant you would instantly recognize the snake you weren't holding.
I spoke directly to the Cologne incident and to the government consideration of it, the very real chance that it was a serious body of people set on a very particular path and goal. A milder form of terrorism. And if the German suspicion is upheld, your suggestion is precisely the sort of response it was aimed at inciting.
Quetzal
New member
Some have argued that it should be a prerequisite for membership to this website. But then you would the only member. Am I right?