Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder:

This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread.

Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

Thanks.

 

[evolved2]

what if 80% of the population suddenly became muslim, how scary is that is you spouting great replacement theory whether you're smart enough to realise it or not

the whole point of it is that white christians will no longer be the dominant demographic

I used the term converted ie convert the current population.

You're too easily triggered to have these sorts of discussions.

 

[bzparkes]

So....If Muslims are breeding too much, and we assume that part of the problem with man made CO2 emissions is the that the population of the planet is becoming too high, and accept that global warming affects the weather.
We can actually conclude that its Islam's fault that it is raining today.

Personally, I blame the amount of methane from farting cows.

Could always blame the Hindus instead?

 

[evolved2]

It's not rational to be afraid of a religion unless you believe there is some sort of conspired sudden uprising to come from it, like muslims of islamic faith are zombified and once triggered / instructed will take over our country and force us to live a lifestyle against our will.

Religious groups are another source of ingroup bias, and Abrahamic religious groups typically lean towards conservative social views. The left has aligned themselves with Muslims (poor/brown) and opposes Christian influence (wealthy/white), so have tied themselves up here.

During the SSM debate, an Islamic spokesperson was quoted:
"Unfortunately, in the current climate, the right and conservative side has attacked Muslims as terrorists and extremists, and naturally the left side has been allies in defending us for a long period of time," he said.

"We are afraid if we come out with our opinion then the left may abandon us for going against their view and we can't be friendly with the conservatives because they have been bashing us for 15, 20 years every chance they get … and that includes some Christian sects as well."

Why have Muslims been so silent on same-sex marriage?

One Muslim leader says the community is torn between offending left-wing allies and siding with right-wing critics, but some leaders are starting to speak up.

www.abc.net.au

Political groups seek to woo the religious vote in the US and even Australia. Remember when we had politicians showing up to Hillsong church?

Muslim groups will eventually organise politically here as well. Some may align themselves with progressive social views, but the majority likely wont.

No rational person would believe '80% of Australians converted to Islam overnight'. < This is not even remotely realistic of ever happening. Ever.

That wasn't the point of the theoretical exercise.

^ If that did happen, then yep fair enough, you've got reason for fear, even then, it would take the majority to have identical radicalized mind set devoted to the hard-core principles to be a problem. That'd be akin that every Catholic has a penchant to be a pedo, it just ain't true.

This is the fear I don't get, and I don't get why you (usually measured and practical in thought) would even entertain the thought in the first place. Largely based on fear of hypotheticals, just doesn't hold weight.

I don't like any religious involvement in our laws and politics, and Im not entertaining the thought that 80% would convert to Islam overnight or ever.

I'm trying to determine whether the Islam defenders here actually realise what Muslims believe on their pet topics like LGBTQ rights.

 

[Gralin]

Religious groups are another source of ingroup bias, and Abrahamic religious groups typically lean towards conservative social views. The left has aligned themselves with Muslims (poor/brown) and opposes Christian influence (wealthy/white), so have tied themselves up here.

During the SSM debate, an Islamic spokesperson was quoted:
"Unfortunately, in the current climate, the right and conservative side has attacked Muslims as terrorists and extremists, and naturally the left side has been allies in defending us for a long period of time," he said.

"We are afraid if we come out with our opinion then the left may abandon us for going against their view and we can't be friendly with the conservatives because they have been bashing us for 15, 20 years every chance they get … and that includes some Christian sects as well."

Why have Muslims been so silent on same-sex marriage?

One Muslim leader says the community is torn between offending left-wing allies and siding with right-wing critics, but some leaders are starting to speak up.

www.abc.net.au

Political groups seek to woo the religious vote in the US and even Australia. Remember when we had politicians showing up to Hillsong church?

Muslim groups will eventually organise politically here as well. Some may align themselves with progressive social views, but the majority likely wont.

That wasn't the point of the theoretical exercise.

I don't like any religious involvement in our laws and politics, and Im not entertaining the thought that 80% would convert to Islam overnight or ever.

I'm trying to determine whether the Islam defenders here actually realise what Muslims believe on their pet topics like LGBTQ rights.

Muslims are not a monolith the same as any other group

 

[faible]

Nobody's expecting the country to 'suddenly' become Muslim.

When one group of people are actively having less, or no, children, they'll naturally end up being outnumbered by another group that does.

It's just how it is.

Great Replacement - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

the ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced by non-white peoples—especially from Muslim-majority countries—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans.

Sounds pretty GRT adjacent to me.

 

[evolved2]

Muslims are not a monolith the same as any other group

Nobody said they were and you're missing the point, probably deliberately.

Imagine if every time someone said the political right are against transgender rights, I mentioned they're not a monolith.

 

[Gralin]

Nobody said they were and you're missing the point, probably deliberately.

Imagine if every time someone said the political right are against transgender rights, I mentioned they're not a monolith.

not everyone on the right is against trans rights so that would be an accurate statement

so I'm not feeling at risk of you saying that

 

[Gethelred]

Nobody's expecting the country to 'suddenly' become Muslim.

When one group of people are actively having less, or no, children, they'll naturally end up being outnumbered by another group that does.

It's just how it is.

... for someone who has determinatedly stated that other people are reading GRT into innocent posting, this is very GRT.

 

[bzparkes]

... for someone who has determinatedly stated that other people are reading GRT into innocent posting, this is very GRT.

GRT would imply that there's some kind of directive behind it to 'breed out' a particular group.

I'm not that much of a tinfoil hat.

I'd imagine someone, somewhere is benefitting very handsomely from flooding Europe with undocumented migrants, however I don't think it's as sinister as some some world-body planning to eradicate one race or another.

There's simply some financial benefit for some particular very rich people and politicians are mostly corrupt, so will just accept 'lobbying' to support a particular stance.

You only need to look at how the far-right parties in Europe are staunchly pro-Putin to see this.

Giving Russia a massive influence over Europe only serves to benefit Putin and nobody else, yet these parties gleefully accept handouts from a glorified mob boss, despite it absolutely not being in their country's best interests.

I mean, there's enough evidence of Russia shipping people to the borders of Eastern Europe to illegally cross borders, for starters. There's been enough clashes at the Belarusian/Polish border, as well as previous incidents in Finland.

It's not a complete stretch to imagine Russia is also influential in pushing people from Africa and Syria, considering Russia has a relatively strong presence(via Wagner) in both those locations.

Putin tries to flood Europe with hordes of undocumented illegals, then funds the pro-Putin far-right parties to promise to 'fix' the issue and suddenly Ukraine is far easier to take

If there was an avenue to do this utilising native Europeans then they'd use this method instead.

It could be a batshit crazy theory, but it's more believable than a world body of white people importing non-white migrants to breed themselves out of existence in their own countries.

That may indeed come to fruition in a couple of hundred years but it'll be because people were more concerned with lining their own pockets, not some 'great conspiracy'.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

GRT would imply that there's some kind of directive behind it to 'breed out' a particular group.

I'm not that much of a tinfoil hat.

I'd imagine someone, somewhere is benefitting very handsomely from flooding Europe with undocumented migrants, however I don't think it's as sinister as some some world-body planning to eradicate one race or another.

There's simply some financial benefit for some particular very rich people and politicians are mostly corrupt, so will just accept 'lobbying' to support a particular stance.

You only need to look at how the far-right parties in Europe are staunchly pro-Putin to see this.

Giving Russia a massive influence over Europe only serves to benefit Putin and nobody else, yet these parties gleefully accept handouts from a glorified mob boss, despite it absolutely not being in their country's best interests.

I mean, there's enough evidence of Russia shipping people to the borders of Eastern Europe to illegally cross borders, for starters. There's been enough clashes at the Belarusian/Polish border, as well as previous incidents in Finland.

It's not a complete stretch to imagine Russia is also influential in pushing people from Africa and Syria, considering Russia has a relatively strong presence(via Wagner) in both those locations.

Putin tries to flood Europe with hordes of undocumented illegals, then funds the pro-Putin far-right parties to promise to 'fix' the issue and suddenly Ukraine is far easier to take

If there was an avenue to do this utilising native Europeans then they'd use this method instead.

It could be a batshit crazy theory, but it's more believable than a world body of white people importing non-white migrants to breed themselves out of existence in their own countries.

That may indeed come to fruition in a couple of hundred years but it'll be because people were more concerned with lining their own pockets, not some 'great conspiracy'.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The "Jack Ryan" series had a plot which placed them amongst the flow of refugees from ISIS Syria. I don't know how much effort was taken to make it non-fictional, most commentators suggest that the producers did their due diligence.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Personally, I blame the amount of methane from farting cows.

Could always blame the Hindus instead?

The carbon footprint of foods: are differences explained by the impacts of methane?

How we treat the climate impacts of methane matter a lot for carbon footprint of foods. But even if we exclude methane, meat and dairy products emit the most.

ourworldindata.org

Hindu's don't necessarily eat a large amount of beef.
Pork is less detrimental to global warming than beef or lamb.

 

[bzparkes]

The carbon footprint of foods: are differences explained by the impacts of methane?

How we treat the climate impacts of methane matter a lot for carbon footprint of foods. But even if we exclude methane, meat and dairy products emit the most.

ourworldindata.org

Hindu's don't necessarily eat a large amount of beef.
Pork is less detrimental to global warming than beef or lamb.

Was more a quip about Cows being sacred, so they're everywhere(obviously more are farmed for consumption purposes in other countries than left to block cars).

 

[Number37]

GRT would imply that there's some kind of directive behind it to 'breed out' a particular group.

I'm not that much of a tinfoil hat.

I'd imagine someone, somewhere is benefitting very handsomely from flooding Europe with undocumented migrants, however I don't think it's as sinister as some some world-body planning to eradicate one race or another.

There's simply some financial benefit for some particular very rich people and politicians are mostly corrupt, so will just accept 'lobbying' to support a particular stance.

You only need to look at how the far-right parties in Europe are staunchly pro-Putin to see this.

Giving Russia a massive influence over Europe only serves to benefit Putin and nobody else, yet these parties gleefully accept handouts from a glorified mob boss, despite it absolutely not being in their country's best interests.

I mean, there's enough evidence of Russia shipping people to the borders of Eastern Europe to illegally cross borders, for starters. There's been enough clashes at the Belarusian/Polish border, as well as previous incidents in Finland.

It's not a complete stretch to imagine Russia is also influential in pushing people from Africa and Syria, considering Russia has a relatively strong presence(via Wagner) in both those locations.

Putin tries to flood Europe with hordes of undocumented illegals, then funds the pro-Putin far-right parties to promise to 'fix' the issue and suddenly Ukraine is far easier to take

If there was an avenue to do this utilising native Europeans then they'd use this method instead.

It could be a batshit crazy theory, but it's more believable than a world body of white people importing non-white migrants to breed themselves out of existence in their own countries.

That may indeed come to fruition in a couple of hundred years but it'll be because people were more concerned with lining their own pockets, not some 'great conspiracy'.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Putin is funding the takeover of Europe by Muslims.
To support the far right parties.
Who he controls.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Technically, posting about undocumented migrants would change their status to documented migrants.

 

[Carringbush2010]

That wasn't the point of the theoretical exercise.

The bolded, theoretical or hypothetical

I don't like any religious involvement in our laws and politics, and Im not entertaining the thought that 80% would convert to Islam overnight or ever.

Then why bring it up in conversation?

I'm trying to determine whether the Islam defenders here actually realise what Muslims believe on their pet topics like LGBTQ rights.

I'm beginning to figure out that your investment in this debate is to point out 'da left' is blindly aligning with muslims / islam coz they're a marginalized minority, but at the same time pointing out that 'da left' are naively unaware of the far right wing values they hold, like misogyny for example.

Would this be a correct assumption? If so, that's rather a broad brush that you've applied to all and sundry muslims.

 

[Chief]

Putin tries to flood Europe with hordes of undocumented illegals,

As I recall the Russians invited them on a promise of work and some form of residency permission, then trucked them to the border.

Can't blame the people who took up a duplicitous offer.

 

[bzparkes]

As I recall the Russians invited them on a promise of work and some form of residency permission, then trucked them to the border.

Can't blame the people who took up a duplicitous offer.

Well, I don't blame them at all.

I blame Putin.

 

[Chief]

Well, I don't blame them at all.

I blame Putin.

The whole "flood" thing sort of indicates you do.

 

[bzparkes]

The whole "flood" thing sort of indicates you do.

Quote the full post for context.

 

[faible]

GRT would imply that there's some kind of directive behind it to 'breed out' a particular group.

I'm not that much of a tinfoil hat.

I'd imagine someone, somewhere is benefitting very handsomely from flooding Europe with undocumented migrants, however I don't think it's as sinister as some some world-body planning to eradicate one race or another.

There's simply some financial benefit for some particular very rich people and politicians are mostly corrupt, so will just accept 'lobbying' to support a particular stance.

You only need to look at how the far-right parties in Europe are staunchly pro-Putin to see this.

Giving Russia a massive influence over Europe only serves to benefit Putin and nobody else, yet these parties gleefully accept handouts from a glorified mob boss, despite it absolutely not being in their country's best interests.

I mean, there's enough evidence of Russia shipping people to the borders of Eastern Europe to illegally cross borders, for starters. There's been enough clashes at the Belarusian/Polish border, as well as previous incidents in Finland.

It's not a complete stretch to imagine Russia is also influential in pushing people from Africa and Syria, considering Russia has a relatively strong presence(via Wagner) in both those locations.

Putin tries to flood Europe with hordes of undocumented illegals, then funds the pro-Putin far-right parties to promise to 'fix' the issue and suddenly Ukraine is far easier to take

If there was an avenue to do this utilising native Europeans then they'd use this method instead.

It could be a batshit crazy theory, but it's more believable than a world body of white people importing non-white migrants to breed themselves out of existence in their own countries.

That may indeed come to fruition in a couple of hundred years but it'll be because people were more concerned with lining their own pockets, not some 'great conspiracy'.

Nothing more, nothing less.

You're definitely GRT adjacent with what you're arguing. Seems you're relying on a technicality 'oh it needs to have a <insert nefarious party directing it>' to claim you're not, whilst effectively arguing the main GRT talking points.

 

[Gethelred]

GRT would imply that there's some kind of directive behind it to 'breed out' a particular group.

I mean, I said this to you a little while ago and got no reply:

Not really. GRT refers merely to a supposed future in which the whites are bred out, and there's a lot of variations of it.

I'm sure there are people who think a NWO is involved and organising this - or George Soros - but you don't have to be one of them to be running with GRT.

... and it's just as true as it was before.

I'd imagine someone, somewhere is benefitting very handsomely from flooding Europe with undocumented migrants, however I don't think it's as sinister as some some world-body planning to eradicate one race or another.

There's simply some financial benefit for some particular very rich people and politicians are mostly corrupt, so will just accept 'lobbying' to support a particular stance.

You only need to look at how the far-right parties in Europe are staunchly pro-Putin to see this.

... this is barely an inch away from a NWO conspiracy theory.

Giving Russia a massive influence over Europe only serves to benefit Putin and nobody else, yet these parties gleefully accept handouts from a glorified mob boss, despite it absolutely not being in their country's best interests.

I mean, there's enough evidence of Russia shipping people to the borders of Eastern Europe to illegally cross borders, for starters. There's been enough clashes at the Belarusian/Polish border, as well as previous incidents in Finland.

It's not a complete stretch to imagine Russia is also influential in pushing people from Africa and Syria, considering Russia has a relatively strong presence(via Wagner) in both those locations.

Putin tries to flood Europe with hordes of undocumented illegals, then funds the pro-Putin far-right parties to promise to 'fix' the issue and suddenly Ukraine is far easier to take

If there was an avenue to do this utilising native Europeans then they'd use this method instead.

It could be a batshit crazy theory, but it's more believable than a world body of white people importing non-white migrants to breed themselves out of existence in their own countries.

... and it's still a NWO conspiracy theory.

Tell me why it's bad that these countries over time become more brown, BZ. Why does it matter? Why is it an issue worth confronting?

Not, what is the advantage in it for Putin. What is your reason for objecting to it?

The end result of people coming here is not more Muslims in Australia; religion is dying here, a slower death but a death nonetheless. The end result - and that is only if you accept the premise that precisely what they say is happening, that those immigrants will outbreed the native population (what a ****ed up sentence!) and I don't - is that Australians or European nations become more diverse.

Why is this a bad thing?

 

[Gethelred]

Technically, posting about undocumented migrants would change their status to documented migrants.

You win the Internet today.

 

[bzparkes]

Tell me why it's bad that these countries over time become more brown, BZ. Why does it matter? Why is it an issue worth confronting?

Ok, a dose of whataboutism.

Is there anything wrong with African countries becoming more 'white' over time?

Not, what is the advantage in it for Putin. What is your reason for objecting to it?

See above question. Find your answer there.

The end result of people coming here is not more Muslims in Australia; religion is dying here, a slower death but a death nonetheless. The end result - and that is only if you accept the premise that precisely what they say is happening, that those immigrants will outbreed the native population (what a ****ed up sentence!) and I don't - is that Australians or European nations become more diverse.

Why is this a bad thing?

I've no issue with people coming here, provided they are educated, will contribute to Australian society in a positive manner and if they become Australians citizens, prioritise the Australian constitution above whatever beliefs they held before they became a citizen.

It's irrelevant where they came from.

 

[faible]

Is there anything wrong with African countries becoming more 'white' over time?

Are they becoming more white because people from all over the world are wanting to move there for improved living conditions? That doesn't sound so bad to me.

 

[Total Power]

It was a theoretical idea to get you to start thinking beyond Islam = brown people. I guess it didn't work and Gralin is spouting nonsense about racism despite no mention of brown people.

At least Jazny gets it.

I am brown myself and i have bashed Christianity for 5 years in the other thread. Can't do the same about Islam..