Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Is it time Europe bans Islam & muslim immigration? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Sure, you won't. Kind of like the fact that you're a rational person. Oh wait... :rolleyes:

    I did read the news and withheld judgement until a positive statement confirming responsibility had arrived. I don't see why you and a number of other people on this thread seem to think that it's okay to assume without evidence in this one instance. To use 'who else could it have been?' argument is to ask me to prove a negative (that it definitely wasn't IS) and that I can't be asked to do, sorry. The burden of proof is on you if you claim, without evidence, that it was IS before it had been established.

    Have a nice time trying to pretend you didn't read this.

    haha i couldnt resist chum! nope lol, im rational. Theres a difference. You are being very fair - being fair isn't always rational. The difference is distinct. It is rational to believe that, given that french airstrikes have irked ISIS, the refugee crisis and the ISIS leader saying he would use it to mount attacks on Europe in february and the attack in paris this year, that ISIS would be behind the attacks, especially given the typical methods used in this case. Those are the reasons to believe, before knowing for certain, that isis did this. The other thing you have to do when being rational , is think - who else could it have been ? anti capitalists, catholics, etc etc ..... nope, theres no other viable alternative is there? tell me if you can think of one, Id genuinely love to know what you think. So , presuming this was ISIS was indeed in accordance with reason and logic, as is the definition of rational. Disagree with that - i dare you chum!

    (sits, dying to know what he/she'll come up with)
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    That one way trip to Mars is seeming a lot more appealing...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    It's not about British economic interests winning, it's that there is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of foreign aid on the economies of developing countries - many argue that economic foreign aid has not only failed to help developing countries, but has done damage to them. I suspect that simply pumping lots of money into developing countries will have negative consequences for them, which is why I would oppose it.

    The benefits in terms of well-being for immigrants far outweigh the supposed negatives for some British people. The people who support the idea in the thread title, if they were asked which is worse: not being able to migrate to a country and enjoy a considerable improvement in well-being; or not having their wish of "no Muslim immigrants" satisfied, they'd obviously say that not being able to migrate is worse.

    The strength of their preference not to have Muslim immigrants is minimal compared to the preference of Muslim immigrants to migrate to Britain and enjoy better living standards.
    Firstly and as I said at the start I just don't agree with you on the fundamental basis that we can trade off the values and wellbeing of bystanders against one another. I didn't push it because it's not like either of us is going to persuade the other, but just to put the case for the other side against the obvious-sounding "make everyone as well off as possible":

    Imagine that you are walking alongside a lake and you see a drowning man; someone comes up to you and offers to sell you a life buoy for all your worldly goods. All your worldly goods are certainly not as valuable to you as his life is to him. Are you obligated to do it? In my opinion no, and in the opinion of the law also no. In your framework, I think the answer has to be yes.

    Now suppose that that man will use all your worldly goods to buy a few hundred assault rifles and stage a coup d'etat to impose his cult-like beliefs about how to conduct every aspect of daily life on thousands of innocent others, while you intended to use them to buy a house and go on holiday to Tuscany.

    Secondly, although it's a weaker philosophical counterargument - you clearly believe in totally open borders - I'd remind you that in practice my proposal does no violence whatsoever to your values. I am assuming that immigration levels are fixed by political requirements much below the total demand for immigration. By excluding muslims specifically I am not reducing the total number of people removed from third world poverty. At the same time, I am reducing the damage immigration causes to the UK. So my proposal has equal benefit to the worst off and greater total net benefit to the world. Given my assumption of limited immigration, you ought to agree with me even within your own moral framework.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Should be zero


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There isn't even a confirmed link between refugees and the attacks yet. This could be 100% home grown.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    You'll see.
    Hopefully yes
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ashtar)
    Hopefully yes
    The stability of Iran is giving it the opportunity to create an Islamic reinaissance within itself that it will export more successfully than they tried to export the 1979 revolution, when their ideology was still immature and influenced by violent and oppressive safavid, sunnified attitudes and laws. I don't support Iran the way it is. I see its potential to become a bastion of a type of islamic revivalism which is progressivist, liberal, and incorporates secular elements. Western governments should be supporting the chances of such a renaissance, not pushing for regime change, sanctions, and stifling all the ingredients necessary for cultural evolution.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    There isn't even a confirmed link between refugees and the attacks yet. This could be 100% home grown.
    The statistical likelihood of them not using that is very small.

    Secondly it has nothing to do with my original statement


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    The statistical likelihood of them not using that is very small.

    Secondly it has nothing to do with my original statement


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I still agree with what you're saying. ISIS already declared that they'd be embedding ISIS members among the syrian refugees. however, I don't think that they're fighters, or at least that they'll be fighting during this 'phase' of their operations. They'll probably use them as wahaabi community idols to spread their ideology, 'training', and etc in the countries they arrive in.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Good on you. The post wasn't directed at you, however, so I don't see why you take that as an insult, and why you presume that what I meant by pro-Islam in that context was 'saying that not all Muslims are terrorists and that it's stupid to think of them that way.' I don't want to assume much but the fact that you took the trouble to respond to a post just to make a general point assuming that I was making a general argument that I wasn't when it's clearly aimed at a different person doesn't seem too promising.
    So what were you trying to say? What message where you trying to convey?

    You claim that nobody knows your view on the issue and for some reason you don't want to tell us but stop accusing people of other things when you fail to comprehend what it is they are saying. You don't seem to like it when people accuse you of islamophobia but yet you're ready to label anybody who disagrees with you an apologist. Have a word with yourself. I have not said anything about innocent lives being lost being okay but that fact that you jumped on me as soon as I said innocent Muslims shouldn't be vilified because of a few just goes to show what a troll you are and spreading accusations throughout the thread. Grow up and Think before you type.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    If saying that not all Muslims are terrorists and that it's stupid to think of them that way is pro-Islam, then I am proudly pro-Islam.
    Exactly what I don't understand.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Exactly what I don't understand.
    All muslims have a chance of being radicalised. But then all non muslims also have a chance of converting to wahaabism and becoming terrorists, too. The problem here is one of likelihood and observed occurences. There are people of ethnicities without many muslims who become wahaabi-khariji terrorists.
    There are less non-muslim arabs who convert to the wahaabi-khariji form of islam and become terrorists.
    There are also less shia who become sunni, wahaabi terrorists than there are non muslims who become sunni, wahaabi terrorists.

    However, there are far more moderate sunnis who are converted to that interpretation. That is why they are seen to be 'potential future terrorists', along with the fact that the people who the roots of their ideology came from did the same things as da'esh are doing - and moderate sunnis declare love and reverence for historical people who were almost as bad as ISIS. A few of the only differences is that back then, they had much larger armies and didn't engage in guerilla warfare or terrorism within other states. Take Shaam, your homeland for instance.

    What did they do to deserve annexation by the arabs? What did they do to deserve being taxed extra for being non muslims?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    All muslims have a chance of being radicalised. But then all non muslims also have a chance of converting to wahaabism and becoming terrorists, too. The problem here is one of likelihood and observed occurences. There are people of ethnicities without many muslims who become wahaabi-khariji terrorists.
    There are less non-muslim arabs who convert to the wahaabi-khariji form of islam and become terrorists.
    There are also less shia who become sunni, wahaabi terrorists than there are non muslims who become sunni, wahaabi terrorists.

    However, there are far more moderate sunnis who are converted to that interpretation. That is why they are seen to be 'potential future terrorists', along with the fact that the people who the roots of their ideology came from did the same things as da'esh are doing - and moderate sunnis declare love and reverence for historical people who were almost as bad as ISIS. A few of the only differences is that back then, they had much larger armies and didn't engage in guerilla warfare or terrorism within other states. Take Shaam, your homeland for instance.

    What did they do to deserve annexation by the arabs? What did they do to deserve being taxed extra for being non muslims?
    We didn't do anything to deserve annexation by Arabs. I can't think of anything
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    The stability of Iran is giving it the opportunity to create an Islamic reinaissance within itself that it will export more successfully than they tried to export the 1979 revolution, when their ideology was still immature and influenced by violent and oppressive safavid, sunnified attitudes and laws. I don't support Iran the way it is. I see its potential to become a bastion of a type of islamic revivalism which is progressivist, liberal, and incorporates secular elements. Western governments should be supporting the chances of such a renaissance, not pushing for regime change, sanctions, and stifling all the ingredients necessary for cultural evolution.
    Iran has a very young (median age of 28), pro-Western and irreligious population

    However, it's still ruled by old fascist clerics/crazy people who occupy pretty much all the spheres of influence.
    Offline

    21
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Make light? What's 'light' about people dying? Every time something like this happens Muslims are punished. And in talking about innocent Muslims who have nothing to do with this or took part in any of it. It's people like you who are quick to generalise every time and attack like this happens. Sorry,what exactly am I trying to do? You sound so agitated and making quick assumptions,whoah
    Then muslims would do well to give up their silly faith. All religions are farcical IMO and are often the basis for conflict.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laomedeia)
    Then muslims would do well to give up their silly faith. All religions are farcical IMO and are often the basis for conflict.
    On on such grounds many a conflict as happened
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    Iran has a very young (median age of 28), pro-Western and irreligious population

    However, it's still ruled by old fascist clerics/crazy people who occupy pretty much all the spheres of influence.
    I've been to iran many times. The young people there went through a face of irreligious and even atheist culture. Those elements still remain, but there's a large movement towards religious progressivism, not irreligious progressivism. The people are highly critical of the clergy, and I like that. Things will move forward with the next generation of the clergy, as well as the progressive elements already within it, that are beginning to quickly hold more influence than their safavid-influenced counterparts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    We didn't do anything to deserve annexation by Arabs. I can't think of anything
    I agree. And the shia were opposed to it. Lots of the companions of Muhammad and Ali left the muslim state to go to the places that had been taken over to teach the people that there was another form of Islam that wasn't responsible for what was done, and to tell them the story of what had happened. And so the first shia communities formed... Although because they weren't in contact with Imam Ali (a.s) and his successors, they quickly grew deviant, such as the Fatimid berber empire. The same happened to the Alawis who've been oppressing your country, although they're largely secularists anyway.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Imagine that you are walking alongside a lake and you see a drowning man; someone comes up to you and offers to sell you a life buoy for all your worldly goods. All your worldly goods are certainly not as valuable to you as his life is to him. Are you obligated to do it? In my opinion no, and in the opinion of the law also no. In your framework, I think the answer has to be yes.
    Other things being equal, yes, particularly if the person with the worldly goods was not using his goods to help him to earn money and donate it to cost-effective charities, for example.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    Now suppose that that man will use all your worldly goods to buy a few hundred assault rifles and stage a coup d'etat to impose his cult-like beliefs about how to conduct every aspect of daily life on thousands of innocent others, while you intended to use them to buy a house and go on holiday to Tuscany.
    It's about maximising expected utility, in my view: unless you were highly credent beforehand that this man was going to use the goods to carry out the coup d'etat, the prior probability of a random man doing so is extremely low.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    Secondly, although it's a weaker philosophical counterargument - you clearly believe in totally open borders - I'd remind you that in practice my proposal does no violence whatsoever to your values. I am assuming that immigration levels are fixed by political requirements much below the total demand for immigration. By excluding muslims specifically I am not reducing the total number of people removed from third world poverty. At the same time, I am reducing the damage immigration causes to the UK. So my proposal has equal benefit to the worst off and greater total net benefit to the world. Given my assumption of limited immigration, you ought to agree with me even within your own moral framework.
    Yes, I acknowledged this earlier, but there are going to be some Muslims who are likely to integrate and who have the best skills for the jobs in this country - I'm not at all convinced that viewing Muslims - or indeed any human group - as a homogenous mass is helpful, nor am I convinced of the supposed massive negative effects on Britain (you cite the underperformance of Muslims on average, but plenty of Muslims perform extremely well). And, if the official government policy is that we should ban all Muslims, this sets a dangerous precedent, in my view.

    We've probably reached the point at which no further convergence of views can occur within the scope of this thread.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BGreen123)
    What a preposterous xenophobic point! Who will run the NHS, dentists or judiciary system?! Most Muslims I know are all doctors or studying working very hard to become quality providers to the population. Deporting Muslims would mean the country would fall apart


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Don't exaggerate. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wajeeh1364)
    preventing 1.5 billion people from entering Europe is rather stupid.
    Yeah, all the world should enter Europe. :rolleyes:
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 12, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.