Syrian refugees

[GoldenRishi]

I'm on YOUR side, dopefish. [...] while I don't want to pick sides in this, they are against his anti-syrrian immigration leanings and thus in support of you, and you have just repaid me with disrespect.

Firstly, I don't have a "side", VBB, so don't expect a cookie from me because we happen to agree on an issue. I argue what I think is right, if you happen to agree --so much the better for it. But if you decide to attack my argument, then I will respond precisely what I think about your rebuttal. As to the substance of your accusation, yes, I could probably be more pithy, but I'm not getting paid to do this so I'm not going to spend extra time making it short. Thus you'll have to skim the 29 sentences I wrote or you could choose not to read it --as Para loves to remind us, it's a free country.

Secondly, you made a snide comment and I followed in kind. If you don't want snippy comments in return, then don't make them in the first place.

Thirdly, it's outstandingly hypocritical for you to get annoyed at me for attacking your post even though it agreed with my stance, given your post literally did the exact same thing.

It's pretty obvious you don't actually read a lot of books if you don't understand that infodumping off-the-bat is easiest way to lose a reader's interest.

Another bare assertion substantiated by nothing. Also, I don't care if I keep your interest VBB --I wasn't even talking to you in the first place. As it turns out, learning why two people meaningfully disagree isn't something that you can accomplish in 2 sentences.

Socrates would not have countered Paramultart's arguments by telling him his views stem from racism (ad hominem) and laying down long-winded arguments that just makes him want to fight back more. He would tell stories, or inquire paramultart to describe where his stance is coming from to deliver character-building exposition.

Firstly, that's a genetic fallacy, not an ad hominem fallacy. Also, that's not what I said. If you hadn't gotten bored with my "textwall", you might have noted that I explicitly told Para I wasn't accusing his views of being racist to "win" a debate. His views are racist as a simple statement of fact.

Secondly, I'm not interested in trying to change the mind of a Rightist ideologue (A futile and pointless effort for all involved). I'm voicing my opinion so there's at least something countering the extreme views that he espouses loudly and often.

You know, stuff that's interesting. It's not how long you make your sentences, but how you make it long. I disagree with some (a lot) of Paramultart's views, but he's my best friend and I respect him. My arguments were a lot smaller than yours because I chose to highlight what I feel is the most important, I advise you to argue like a real scholar who thirsts for new information his opponent can give him, not a history book that only pushes what it assumes is objective facts (but mostly biased opinions by the author) and is incapable of receiving input.

Yes, yes, this is like the tenth time you've said/implied this in your post. Message received: You think I'm dreadfully boring. I'll just have to find someway to live with myself.

As for your claim about what you think a "real scholar" is, this looks like a caricature of an academic that you've made out of thin air, so you'll have to forgive me for summarily ignoring this torpid attempt to school me on what a real scholar is and how a real scholar thinks.

[Flaose]

Well, we can at least agree that Utah sucks. Although the state itself is beautiful, it's unfortunate that it's so infested with the Mormon church. However, it's not accident that they own that community. Back in the day, they murdered every non-Mormon American and Native American that they could get their hands on in order to maintain their authority over the State of Utah and promote the LDS church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Legion#In_Utah
But particularly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

Did you even read those articles that you linked?

I did.

According to those articles, the Nauvoo Legion was a state-authorized militia created by the Mormons after escaping from the attacks and Extermination Order that they had faced in Missouri on account of their beliefs, the Mountain Meadows massacre was an isolated event perpetuated by some members of the militia due to war hysteria sparked by the federal government sending a quarter of its standing army to occupy Utah territory, and Mormon relations with the Native Americans were generally good but deteriorated at times due to cultural conflict.

Absolutely nowhere in those articles is there a shred of evidence that Mormons 'murdered every non-Mormon American and Native American that they could get their hands on'.

[Levellass]

[Paramultart]

Someone needs to inform GoldenRishi that he's not a civil rights hero
for reciting stale Marxist rhetoric he pulled from yesterday's garbage.

Secondly, I'm not interested in trying to change the mind of a Rightist ideologue
(A futile and pointless effort for all involved). I'm voicing my opinion so there's at least
something countering the extreme views that he espouses loudly and often.

I don't know if you've noticed, GoldenRishi, but being one of the only conservatives
on these boards, I'm largely outnumbered, and my rants usually fall on deaf ears.

You're the only one here who feels it's their duty to whine so thoroughly about them.

Your textwalls are too boring to read.

I'm sorry if my words are too big and that you can't be bothered to read 3 short paragraphs at time.
I recognize that this probably isn't something you're used to doing.

VBB is one of the most avid readers I have ever met, so making a jab at his literacy is just silly.
I will say, however, that his taste in literature is pretty dry even for my taste,
so for him to peg your writing style as dull is really saying something.

Firstly, that's a genetic fallacy, not an ad hominem fallacy.

My goodness... Please don't tell me you have one of those silly little
posters in your room to reference in your many Internet debates.
http://i.imgur.com/ZA41wBU.jpg <---

I explicitly told Para I wasn't accusing his views of being racist to "win" a debate.
His views are racist as a simple statement of fact.

"Racism" is an arbitrary "weapon-word" with communist origins
that has no place in any legitimate political discussion.

Regardless, European Nationalists have tried to make a clear distinction
between the words "racist" and "racialist", but people like you continually
insist on abolishing said distinction because it serves your political talking points
and renders your propaganda far more effective to lump
"those who desire a culturally homogeneous community/nation" with
"those who want to enslave, murder or exploit others for their own personal gain".
(*cough* the jews *cough*)

Of course, it's not racist when Israel strives for strong borders and
a homogeneous people, even going so far as to force-sterilize
Ethiopian Jew immigrants:
http://www.rt.com/news/israel-steriliza ... women-521/
(Seems a little Nazi-esque, eh?)

"Don't listen to that guy... He's a RACIST!
See these mass open graves at Auschwitz, or the poor lynched souls of the south?
DONALD TRUMP/HULK HOGAN/ANN COULTER ARE LITERALLY HITLER!"
That's how propaganda works, and you, like many others, have fallen for it.

People have been brainwashed to such an extent by these "weaponized words"
that it's hard to even have an honest conversation about anything anymore.

I have seen people get physically uncomfortable talking about immigration policy
whenever the "protected classes" come up, and we're seeing that in Europe:
People would literally rather have their homelands raped and pillaged than ever be deemed "racist".

It is not Europe's duty to open its doors to the third world, and doing so
places their own people in jeopardy.
I don't say this out of hatred for other peoples, but out of love for my own.

For example, I have a lot of respect for the Mexican people.
To "generalize", I think they're hard-working, strong in their faith, a rich culture,
and generally have good family values.
But if America wants to help Mexico, the answer is not to give sanctuary to
illegal, non-citizens, nor abolish our borders.
Instead, what if America actually helped its neighbors and freed the Mexican people of their corrupt
government and putting an end to the cartel violence.

Think of it this way: America dumps $3.07 billion dollars of money we don't have into I$rael each year,
along with fighting all of their wars for them as they continue to oppress Palestine.

But hey, I'm no politician, and I pay very little attention to Mexico, because it's not my business.
Illegal immigration into my country, however, IS my business.

(By the way, earlier, you referred to me as a "rightist ideologue". I'm not sure the
full extent of your implication, but if it involved "Fox News" or the "GOP",
I would hope by now you can see where I differ.)

There is not a damn thing wrong with Europeans wanting to have a homeland.
Every people deserve a homeland.

You can say what you want about America being a melting pot, but you simply cannot
justify the way Europe is being destroyed by immigration and Islamization.

All of this forced immigration, forced integration, forced tolerance has done
nothing but stir tensions, no thanks to our atrocious, race-baiting, globalist media.

I am sometimes accused of being racist against African Americans for refusing to see
them as victims and pointing out facts. If they are victims,
then they are victims of anti-white propaganda, because we have
sufficient data to prove that they commit vastly more violent crime against
white people than vice versa.
(Source: FBI homicide by demographic tables & The Department of Justice's
National Crime Victimization Survey)

While I think African Americans have a lot of great qualities as a collective people,
it is fairly obvious that they are being conditioned to hate white people through our
schools, race-baiting media/press, and individuals such as yourself.

It has been 150 years since slavery was abolished, 50 years since the civil rights act,
7 years that we've had a black president, yet racial tensions are worse than ever.
Yet no matter what efforts are made to stamp out racism, the narrative is always
to blame white people, and now even our liberal university professors are
cheering on the destruction of the white race.
Clearly something is wrong, and it's not "right wing ideologues".

You see, multiculturalism is a flawed concept that benefits no one except those who
feast on the corpses in its wake.

The truth is that I can respect all sorts of people,
many with vastly different viewpoints if they have other qualities I like.
I know Keening_Product is repelled by me since my radical transformation,
but I still think he's a cool dude, and VBB, a self-proclaimed Marxist,
is one of my best friends in the world.

I'm trying to find a redeeming quality about you, GoldenRishi,
and not to sound harsh, but I don't think I'm having any luck.
I don't respect you. Not your opinion, nor your arrogance, nor your snide
comments about VBB.

Who knows, maybe you'll change. Maybe I'll change. We'll see.

[GoldenRishi]

Did you even read those articles that you linked?

I did.

You may have read them, I can't attest to that one way or the other, but if you did read them, then you appear to have missed some important information.

According to those articles, the Nauvoo Legion was a state-authorized militia created by the Mormons after escaping from the attacks and Extermination Order that they had faced in Missouri on account of their beliefs, the Mountain Meadows massacre was an isolated event perpetuated by some members of the militia due to war hysteria sparked by the federal government sending a quarter of its standing army to occupy Utah territory, and Mormon relations with the Native Americans were generally good but deteriorated at times due to cultural conflict.

Absolutely nowhere in those articles is there a shred of evidence that Mormons 'murdered every non-Mormon American and Native American that they could get their hands on'.

That's an incredibly bizarre, not to mention occasionally very inaccurate, historical account of early Mormonism. Sure, fine, you're right, "they murdered every non-Mormon American and Native American that they could get their hands" is probably too hyperbolic, but it's not that far off the mark. The only unambiguously correct point that you have is that the US was definitely bigoted towards Mormons --but that's not even in question, at least on my part. The question was whether or not Mormons used violence to maintain control of their territory and keep it a predominantly Mormon theocracy. Saying, "But the US treated them badly" is true, but it doesn't justify them slaughtering non-Mormons. As to the particulars of what you've said:

1.) You're not even acknowledging what Mormons did to get themselves kicked out of Illinois, and why the Illinois disbanded the Nauvoo Legion as a state militia. Yes, again, Missouri's treatment of Mormons was appalling and unacceptable, but it doesn't justify them shutting down anyone they don't like or declaring martial law in order to subvert local government's authority.

2.) The notion that the Mormon church had nothing to do with the massacre is counterfactual to what actually transpired. Yes, Buchanon sent troops to Utah (By the way, your "one quarter of the US army" appears to be a complete fabrication; the US sent ~7,000 troops, of what at the time was an approximately 115,000 strong army), and that was stupid because he had no evidence that they were actually going to rebel. But what the church did prior to that time period was overtly against America, and then in response to Buchanan's threats of getting involved, the Mormon Church's riling up of its congregants only made things, far, far worse. You might also consider looking into Brigham Young's involvement in the Massacre, because at minimum he set up the climate through the Mormon church and it's war paranoia and particularly afterwords, when he covered it up. Not to mention that George A. Smith, nephew of Joseph Smith and a church official (A Quorum member, one of the highest ranks in the Mormon church), spent quite a bit of time personally meeting with the leaders involved in the Massacre riling them up over how badly they were going to attack the American government for their past transgressions, which was followed up by Brigham Young confirming this after the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which makes your argument that the Mormon church had nothing to do with it a very unbelievable claim, and it makes your claim that the Mormon church didn't actively attempt to kill off non-Mormons in order to remain in control of Utah especially unbelievable.


Also, despite your objection to the contrary, the Mormons did not have great relations with Indians, let alone the notion that they had consistently good relations with Walkara (Perhaps you should have read the article you sent me, but you can read more about how their relations with local Native Americans soured and they destroyed them or otherwise took control over Native American territories and resources).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, with all of this said, this particular discussion is rapidly becoming off-topic. I only brought up Mormonism as a counter-example to Paramultart's love of complaining about how Islam is threatening to destroy German culture, and I wanted to point out that Mormons had actually banned Germanic practices and we heard nothing but silence from him (and more generally people who are convinced that Islam is a uniquely evil religion). We can continue discussing this, if you like, but perhaps it might be best to set up a different thread.

[GoldenRishi]

Someone needs to inform GoldenRishi that he's not a civil rights hero
for reciting stale Marxist rhetoric he pulled from yesterday's garbage.

I'm not trying to be a civil rights hero. A civil rights hero is someone who's actually done something for civil rights, like sit ins, etc. Although I've been politically active, I wouldn't call even consider calling myself a "civil rights hero" and so I'm not certain why you're trying to insinuate that I think I am one. I don't need to be a civil rights hero to accurately diagnose that "It's not because [Syrians are] brown, or because they have radically different beliefs... Though those are both HUGE detriments to European society" is extremely racist.

Secondly, I'm not interested in trying to change the mind of a Rightist ideologue
(A futile and pointless effort for all involved). I'm voicing my opinion so there's at least
something countering the extreme views that he espouses loudly and often.

I don't know if you've noticed, GoldenRishi, but being one of the only conservatives
on these boards, I'm largely outnumbered, and my rants usually fall on deaf ears.

That might be a fair enough point, except that I am not convinced that you're the lone conservative on these forums, and in any case you aren't accounting for the people who simply read these forums but don't post.

You're the only one here who feels it's their duty to whine so thoroughly about them.

It's silly to accuse me of being the only person who's complained about Rightists "so thoroughly" when you just got done with a thread Rorie literally days ago and he had far more abusive statements towards Rightists than I have.

Firstly, that's a genetic fallacy, not an ad hominem fallacy.

My goodness... Please don't tell me you have one of those silly little
posters in your room to reference in your many Internet debates.
http://i.imgur.com/ZA41wBU.jpg <---

No, although I have thoroughly read Nikzor Fallacy Pages, which I think everyone could benefit from a good read through.

"Racism" is an arbitrary "weapon-word" with communist origins
that has no place in any legitimate political discussion.

I wasn't aware that the Oxford English Dictionary was a Communist book.

Secondly, even if it were invented by Communists, you're engaging in a genetic fallacy if you think that it means that the usage of racism as a concept is illegitimate.

Regardless, European Nationalists have tried to make a clear distinction
between the words "racist" and "racialist", but people like you continually
insist on abolishing said distinction because it serves your political talking points
and renders your propaganda far more effective to lump
"those who desire a culturally homogeneous community/nation" with
"those who want to enslave, murder or exploit others for their own personal gain".
(*cough* the jews *cough*)

European nationalists are, generally speaking, racists. Well, nationalists everywhere have a strong tendency to be racist and ethnocentric. I consider any position that upholds the notion of racial realism, which is an odious and pseudo-scientific belief, as being a racist position.

The "real" racists aren't the ones that want to enslave and exploit others, although it does often include them. Real "racists" are people who believe that race is a "real" thing, rather than an irrelevant, minor genetic difference, or that one's race is a statement about their culture and who that person is.

Of course, it's not racist when Israel strives for strong borders and
a homogeneous people, even going so far as to force-sterilize
Ethiopian Jew immigrants:
http://www.rt.com/news/israel-steriliza ... women-521/
(Seems a little Nazi-esque, eh?)

Of course, it is racist (or at least ethnocentric) when Israel does it, Israel's treatment of Palestine is appalling and abhorrent. I'm not suddenly going to agree with you that Europe should have a "white's only policy" because Israel is illegitimately trying to maintain an ethnic state of their own.

"Don't listen to that guy... He's a RACIST!
See these mass open graves at Auschwitz, or the poor lynched souls of the south?
DONALD TRUMP/HULK HOGAN/ANN COULTER ARE LITERALLY HITLER!"
That's how propaganda works, and you, like many others, have fallen for it.

Well, one of us has fallen prey to propaganda at any rate.

Para, I never said "Don't listen to this guy, he's racist!" In fact, I haven't even called you a racist, although I have said that some of your views are racist (I think it's a terrible idea to turn racism into a game of identity politics). What I have done is give a specific set of reasons for why I think what you're saying is wrong, and precisely none of it hinged or was claim to hinge upon you being a racist. Now, again, you've chosen to bloviate over how unfair it is for me to call your views racist rather than actually defend your views from my specific objections. And that speaks volumes, in my opinion, about your ability to defend your own views against criticism.

I have seen people get physically uncomfortable talking about immigration policy
whenever the "protected classes" come up, and we're seeing that in Europe:
People would literally rather have their homelands raped and pillaged than ever be deemed "racist".

The spurious claim that Sweden has increased rapes due to "foreigners" was debunked an entire page ago. If you're going to continue to make this spurious claim, the least you do is pretend to defend it.

For example, I have a lot of respect for the Mexican people.
To "generalize", I think they're hard-working, strong in their faith, a rich culture,
and generally have good family values.
But if America wants to help Mexico, the answer is not to give sanctuary to
illegal, non-citizens, nor abolish our borders.
Instead, what if America actually helped its neighbors and freed the Mexican people of their corrupt
government and putting an end to the cartel violence.

Sorry, but the only thing that I really have to say to this is: You are aware that borders are made up, right? The universe didn't pop up into existence with all of the borders in place and all of the cultures set in stone, right? You do understand that cultures have mixed before, right? You are aware that your genetic progenitors are a mixture of various cultures, right? You do realize that "white people", i.e. roughly characterized by the various Proto-Indo-European tribes, were all over Eastern Asia before they moved into and invaded Europe and mixed with the local cultures, right? You are aware that even just one hundred and fifty years ago, the world map looked entirely differently and Germany didn't even exist, right? You are aware that Europe has let non-white, non-Europeans into their countries before, right?

(By the way, earlier, you referred to me as a "rightist ideologue". I'm not sure the
full extent of your implication, but if it involved "Fox News" or the "GOP",
I would hope by now you can see where I differ.)

A Rightist idealogue means someone who is very strongly entrenched in any right-wing ideology. In your case, it looks like a rather run of the mill brand of American facism, much like the ones present during the 1920's in America, but I don't know your economic positions, so I can't really say for sure. As for my estimation on whether or not you are one, this post has not dispelled my notion that you are one, it's only added to the evidence that you are a right-wing idealogue.

There is not a damn thing wrong with Europeans wanting to have a homeland.
Every people deserve a homeland.

I would say everyone deserves a home, not a say in who their neighbors are or what skin color they have, or what their favorite food is, and so on.

You can say what you want about America being a melting pot, but you simply cannot
justify the way Europe is being destroyed by immigration and Islamization.

You've been repeatedly asked to substantiate this abject bare assertion, so I suppose it would be optimistic to the point of foolishness to expect you to attempt to defend this position now.

I am sometimes accused of being racist against African Americans for refusing to see
them as victims and pointing out facts. If they are victims,
then they are victims of anti-white propaganda, because we have
sufficient data to prove that they commit vastly more violent crime against
white people than vice versa.
(Source: FBI homicide by demographic tables & The Department of Justice's
National Crime Victimization Survey)

While I think African Americans have a lot of great qualities as a collective people,
it is fairly obvious that they are being conditioned to hate white people through our
schools, race-baiting media/press, and individuals such as yourself.
[...]
Clearly something is wrong, and it's not "right wing ideologues".

I haven't discussed black people so far in this thread, so that's an interesting accusation.

Arguments like these are an example of severely misunderstanding statistics. Here's the much more reasonable chain of causitive effects:

1.) Poor people are more likely to commit crimes.
2.) Most black people are very poor, most white people are not in poverty.
3.) Black people are more likely to commit crimes.

You can realize that statements like this are true because you can read poverty statistics, and you can discover that poor whites are just as violent as poor blacks. It's not because they're white or black, it's because they're broke and they need money to eat, so they steal things, sell drugs, prostitute themselves, or join gangs.

You're right that something is wrong, but you're wrong that it's not right-wing idealogues. Trickle down (supply-side) economics and the rest of Reagan/Greenspan's policies have had a devastating effect on the lower and, steadily vanishing, middle-class.

The truth is that I can respect all sorts of people,
many with vastly different viewpoints if they have other qualities I like.
I know Keening_Product is repelled by me since my radical transformation,
but I still think he's a cool dude, and VBB, a self-proclaimed Marxist,
is one of my best friends in the world.

I'm trying to find a redeeming quality about you, GoldenRishi,
and not to sound harsh, but I don't think I'm having any luck.
I don't respect you. Not your opinion, nor your arrogance, nor your snide
comments about VBB.

Who knows, maybe you'll change. Maybe I'll change. We'll see.

I'm not in these discussions to win a popularity contest, and, no offense, but I'm not up at night because people on the internet don't like me or are offended because I had the audacity to correct statements that I find erroneous. You can label me as being a big meanie-pants for telling you that saying "Brown people shouldn't be in Europe" is racist. You can tell me all of my facts are "boring." You can call me a "Marxist" (For the record, I am a socialist, but I am more anti-Communist than I am anti-Capitalist, and also I don't have a very large interest in Karl Marx). I don't care if you think I'm arrogant because I have the audacity to correct people when they spout nonsense. And most of all, I don't care if I have your respect.


With that said, I'm not interested in a one-dimensional perspective of a person as only being their politics. I happen to like the artistry on your and VBB's mod, and you guys seem to be valuable members of PCKF. I could just do without your politics being tossed around in practically every thread in the Miscellaneous subforum.

[VikingBoyBilly]

text

whatever