Malkuthian said:

Your arguments keeps getting better and better...

I don't have a theory. I don't think I have enough information to be able to make a statement regarding a probable reason. That's how I do it; I need a lot of in-data to draw conclusions. I know that's not how you do though... That does not mean I agree with your theory...

And because of this I am scared? How does that make sense to you?

Yea, cause taking drugs make you hate certain groups of people, everybody knows that...

---

viktor said:

Just look at how shit and abusive Christianity is, and that's after hundreds of years of major reforms and massive pressure from the non-religious to not longer put up with their shit.

Islam is what Christianity would be like if it never reformed. Think of the mentality that led to the witch burnings and Inquisition and that is what you're getting with Muslim immigrants.

---

qman said:

Some groups do have less value, whether is based on culture, religion, ideology, or gang affiliation.  Race might have nothing to do with the problem of the group.

---

qman said:

"describing prejudice hate towards a specific group"

It's not hate pointing the flaws of a specific group of people, it's observation.

---

Icelander said:

viktor said:

Just look at how shit and abusive Christianity is, and that's after hundreds of years of major reforms and massive pressure from the non-religious to not longer put up with their shit.

Islam is what Christianity would be like if it never reformed. Think of the mentality that led to the witch burnings and Inquisition and that is what you're getting with Muslim immigrants.

---

Oh I do. That has been what has informed my opinion on this along with watching world events. It's beyond ugly.

My view on this may seem harsh but it's up to the  people of each tribe/country to deal with and fix the govt/leaders of their own culture and religions.  Running to another country imo is only permissible if you adopt fully the culture and lifestyles of the new country and frankly I'd only let in women and children for the most part.  I know it sounds shitty but it's a shitty situation. It's too bad that IMO we in more stable countries often do things to make situations worse in other countries in the name of business. IMO we usually back the bad guys and end up fighting them later.

---

Icelander said:

viktor said:

Just look at how shit and abusive Christianity is, and that's after hundreds of years of major reforms and massive pressure from the non-religious to not longer put up with their shit.

Islam is what Christianity would be like if it never reformed. Think of the mentality that led to the witch burnings and Inquisition and that is what you're getting with Muslim immigrants.

---

Oh I do. That has been what has informed my opinion on this along with watching world events. It's beyond ugly.

My view on this may seem harsh but it's up to the  people of each tribe/country to deal with and fix the govt/leaders of their own culture and religions.  Running to another country imo is only permissible if you adopt fully the culture and lifestyles of the new country and frankly I'd only let in women and children for the most part.  I know it sounds shitty but it's a shitty situation. It's too bad that IMO we in more stable countries often do things to make situations worse in other countries in the name of business. IMO we usually back the bad guys and end up fighting them later.

---

qman said:

Malkuthian said:

You really want to make a semantic point on this?
Lets not. Lets stick to the point. I would call the view that an entire group of people has less value than others racist. I am used to the word describing prejudice hate towards a specific group. You would not use the word in that sense. Ok. So then it's okay to argue that all Muslims have less value than others?....No it's not. It's still just as bad.

---

"I would call the view that an entire group of people has less value than others racist"

Some groups do have less value, whether is based on culture, religion, ideology, or gang affiliation.  Race might have nothing to do with the problem of the group.

"describing prejudice hate towards a specific group"

It's not hate pointing the flaws of a specific group of people, it's observation.

---

airclay said:

And your ideas of "some groups do have less value" is some weird social darwinian shit. NO, no one person has any less value than another. We are all wholes of experiences compiled to make a human. Every human holds the same value simply because they are human.

fuck off with that socially conditioned idea of human value. (not you personally qman, but that idea needs to fuck off)

---

viktor said:

Well it's simply a matter of human capital.

As I have written several times, all it takes is reading a history book and you can get a pretty good idea about Muslim culture. If you do, it's clear that it is not compatible with modern Western culture.

---

Quote:

We are not naive in New Zealand. We are a remnant of the British Empire, which stretched across the whole world. The British came in contact with everybody, and they knew that some people are valuable and some people are no good.

The 20% of New Zealand from the third world are mostly from India, China, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji. These are cultures that have an appreciation of human decency.

The 5% of Sweden from the third world are mostly Muslims. History tells us that Muslims simply do not get along with other people.

My grandfather was in Egypt during WWII. The soldiers had a saying of the Arabs: that they were either at your feet or at your throat.

We know what Muslims are like in New Zealand, so we don't let them in.

Because we let in people from good cultures instead, they integrate with the locals, treat us with respect, generally work hard and contribute. So the people are not upset with immigration, and feel no need to vote for a neo-Nazi party.

Because Sweden lets in people who do not integrate, who do not treat you with respect, who do not generally work hard and contribute, the people become upset with immigration and vote for a neo-Nazi party.

I can guess from your posts and your hatred of America that you are a smygkommunister. So probably you think all people have equal value. This is a mistake, and I hope that you realise this before it's too late for your country.

---

viktor said:

airclay said:

And your ideas of "some groups do have less value" is some weird social darwinian shit. NO, no one person has any less value than another. We are all wholes of experiences compiled to make a human. Every human holds the same value simply because they are human.

fuck off with that socially conditioned idea of human value. (not you personally qman, but that idea needs to fuck off)

---

Do you let homeless people live in your house?

---

airclay said:

qman said:

Malkuthian said:

You really want to make a semantic point on this?
Lets not. Lets stick to the point. I would call the view that an entire group of people has less value than others racist. I am used to the word describing prejudice hate towards a specific group. You would not use the word in that sense. Ok. So then it's okay to argue that all Muslims have less value than others?....No it's not. It's still just as bad.

---

"I would call the view that an entire group of people has less value than others racist"

Some groups do have less value, whether is based on culture, religion, ideology, or gang affiliation.  Race might have nothing to do with the problem of the group.

"describing prejudice hate towards a specific group"

It's not hate pointing the flaws of a specific group of people, it's observation.

---

It's hate when you take that observation and apply it to larger swaths of that specific group instead of remembering that one, ten, a hundred nor a thousand can give you reliable observations to address entire cultures by.

And your ideas of "some groups do have less value" is some weird social darwinian shit. NO, no one person has any less value than another. We are all wholes of experiences compiled to make a human. Every human holds the same value simply because they are human.

fuck off with that socially conditioned idea of human value. (not you personally qman, but that idea needs to fuck off)

---

airclay said:

Because a situation might be deemed unsafe does not mean anyone is being valued less.

---

Quote:

We are not naive in New Zealand. We are a remnant of the British Empire, which stretched across the whole world. The British came in contact with everybody, and they knew that some people are valuable and some people are no good.

The 20% of New Zealand from the third world are mostly from India, China, Samoa, Tonga and Fiji. These are cultures that have an appreciation of human decency.

---

Quote:

We know what Muslims are like in New Zealand, so we don't let them in.

Because we let in people from good cultures instead, they integrate with the locals, treat us with respect, generally work hard and contribute.

---

airclay said:

and that ^^^ is some straight social darwinian bullshit

---

Quote:

The three major fallacies it commits are the appeal to authority, retrospective determinism, and the naturalistic fallacy. It appeals to the scientific authority of Darwinism to deceptively associate scientific clout with a decidedly pseudo-scientific theory which, as will be subsequently explained, misinterprets a majority of Darwin's own thinking. It relies upon circular reasoning and retrospective determinism, or the notion that because something happened it was therefore bound to happen, when it infers that since it may be possible for certain individuals to possess genetic characteristics (intelligence, drive, noble bloodlines) that elevate them from others in terms of wealth and societal status, that then all individuals with such wealth possess such superior genetic characteristics. Therefore all wealthy (or Aryan as used in Nazi eugenics, or any other denotation of privilege) people are justified in their superiority because of the natural selection of genetic factors. This retrospective determinism is used most damningly on the poor and underprivileged, because it assumes that since individuals were born into environments with poor educational resources, rampant crime and urban decay, and other symptoms of poverty, that they all must therefore possess inferior genetic characteristics. The naturalistic fallacy, or the inference that simply because something may be true makes it morally right, comes into play in the subsequent accusation that these people deserve their impoverished state because their genes were unable to adapt to the environment. Indeed, just as certain species which cannot adapt die and become extinct, so the higher death rate in impoverished areas helps to purify the genetic pool of humanity as a whole; thus, such inferior individuals should be allowed to "die out" for the greater good, as Spencer argues. While such internal contradictions are damning enough, when one realizes the extent to which the theory misinterprets Darwin's own ideas, it becomes impossible to conclude that the heritability of ideas is based upon logic alone

---

Quote:

Though the logical idea of Social Darwinism is an example of an erroneous and destructive attempt to interpose biological evolution onto a social template, the propagation of the idea among generations in our society is a vivid example of how such interpretations can succeed. It has been shown that the idea is heritable, experiences random variance, and differential reproduction; thus, the term "idea" is no longer an adequate description.

---

airclay said:

To place a value on your personal property and to not trust individuals you don't know

---

viktor said:

Well, if you don't think 25% of the population voting for a neo-Nazi party is a problem, I guess that's where we disagree. The SD are going to absolutely destroy everything good about Sweden if they get into power. And they are going to get into power if things keep going the way they're going.

---