Guns Guns Guns, Now Paris!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Does his message have to do anything with suede, leather, sweet sixteen and fast cars? ;)

---

I don't get it.

I have no idea how many Muslims are members of or read this board. But I'll just throw this out for consideration. So long as the large majority of Muslims fail to take an active, vocal and public stand against the terrorist activities of the very few, the long term consequences could be grave for Islam. The large and continuing number of bombings and public assaults on civilians, where ever they may occur, will begin to be seen as a war against all other religions with tacit permission from the silent majority of Muslims. Sooner or later a tipping point in world opinion will be reached where the rest of the world will have had enough and Islam and it's adherents will begin to be seen as an outlaw religion. When that happens it would not be a good idea to practice Islam in public in most countries. If you want to have a place in the world you have to work at cleaning up your own house.

I can appreciate what you’re saying Starter, but consider the fact that there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world (or ~23% of the population, according to google). It is also one of the fastest growing religions in the world, so I can’t see it being an “outlaw” religion any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

. The large and continuing number of bombings and public assaults on civilians, where ever they may occur, will begin to be seen as a war against all other religions with tacit permission from the silent majority of Muslims. Sooner or later a tipping point in world opinion will be reached where the rest of the world will have had enough and Islam and it's adherents will begin to be seen as an outlaw religion.

---

As far as I remember none of the bombing/assaults from USA, Madrid, London and now Paris had as motivation the religion of the victims.....:confused:

Generally the terrorists pretend to do the assaults in the name of their religion but in fact it's all about politics.
Their religion doesn't teach them to kill innocent people and terrorists are just misinterpreting the Quoran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I have no idea how many Muslims are members of or read this board. But I'll just throw this out for consideration. So long as the large majority of Muslims fail to take an active, vocal and public stand against the terrorist activities of the very few, the long term consequences could be grave for Islam. The large and continuing number of bombings and public assaults on civilians, where ever they may occur, will begin to be seen as a war against all other religions with tacit permission from the silent majority of Muslims. Sooner or later a tipping point in world opinion will be reached where the rest of the world will have had enough and Islam and it's adherents will begin to be seen as an outlaw religion. When that happens it would not be a good idea to practice Islam in public in most countries. If you want to have a place in the world you have to work at cleaning up your own house.

---

Luckily most people do not have such a simplistic outlook on life.

While the terrorists may proclaim to act for the whole religion its clear that the vast majority do not agree with their views. If they did, we'd be at war with 1.6 billion people. We clearly are not.

However your point about Muslims having to take responsibility for the actions of a minority of terrorists within their ranks is actually ironically precisely the same thinking process the terrorists have. You do realise that you are viewed as fair game by these extremists because as an American civilian you are responsible for voting for and funding governments that kill civilians (whether accidental or deliberate is not of interest to them) across the Muslim world? Your failure to oppose these actions means that according to their logic you are as legitimate a target as an American soldier. This is the exact logic they use to justify mass killings of civilians everywhere.

Of course your link to the actions of your government is stronger than the average Muslim living somewhere in the Middle East or Asia who has no control over groups like ISIS, you have a vote and pay taxes to the government they oppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

I just wonder how much (philosophically) you need to give to certain people to keep them feeling enfranchised. I raise two kids and I almost spoiled the older one (now 7) by giving him too much (toys and stuff). He got the point and started playing the drama of a disenfranchised guy each time he wanted another unnecessary thing. At some point his every other phrase would start with something like "It's a pity that..." I reckon these two just didn't have enough honest disciplining from their parents or the French government.

---

As Tazio has suggested the French have a long complex relationship with their Algerian and sub-Saharan African migrants. First, a bitter war of independence where the French were pretty brutal then widespread discrimination against Algerian migrants in France. Ever heard of banlieue? The dictionary will tell you its an innocent French word for suburb. The reality is that these are miserable apartment blocks on the outskirts of big cities where undesirables like Algerians, blacks and the poorest and worst of French society find themselves. Its nearly impossible for people there to climb out of poverty as those postcodes are blacklisted. Frequently CVs with those postcodes are simply binned before they're even reviewed for job applications. I would watch La Haine if you want to see what life there is like. As for the French police, their tendency to recourse to violence at the first opportunity is well known. Every time we fly there my wife, caucasian French, reminds me never to look the police in the eye and never EVER talk back regardless of the circumstances. Its easy to see how resentment and frustration boil over into anger and eventually violence. For the vast majority of those in the banlieue their outlets are the riots that hit those areas quite regularly. While I abhor terrorism I can however understand how these three, brought up and raised in the circumstances they were in chose a more organised and violent way of hitting back at the system. And of course it is never possible to prove institutional racism in a country where data collection regarding ethnic origin is simply not performed, hence institutional racism simply does not exist. The French state really is secular in every possible way for better or for worse.

Of course the Algerians are not blameless, many of them are unskilled workers who came to supply the labour force in the '60s and found themselves unemployable once the French economy slowed down and reduced its demand for unskilled labour. Culturally many of these migrants do not value education and therefore their descendants find it doubly difficult to find good employment and climb out of the ghetto.

The religious aspect of this is only a recent development as second and third generation Algerians in France try to return to their roots in a bid to find their identity in a country that simply won't accept them as equals. The proportion of Algerian descendants who wear hijabs for example is much higher currently than it was 20-30 years ago.

I'm not very optimistic about France for 2015. Once the togetherness from Je Suis Charlie dies down I think there will be some pretty nasty discourse going on. Cars will burn again and the FN will rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

You do realise that you are viewed as fair game by these extremists because as an American civilian you are responsible for voting for and funding governments that kill civilians (whether accidental or deliberate is not of interest to them) across the Muslim world? Your failure to oppose these actions means that according to their logic you are as legitimate a target as an American soldier. This is the exact logic they use to justify mass killings of civilians everywhere.

Of course your link to the actions of your government is stronger than the average Muslim living somewhere in the Middle East or Asia who has no control over groups like ISIS, you have a vote and pay taxes to the government they oppose.

---

This +1.

Such a view wouldn't be unjustified either:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

- The Grauniad, 7th Oct 2005

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...q-6262644.html
In the programmeElusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, which starts on Monday, the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."
- The Independent, 7th Oct 2005

I suspect thought that Starter watches Fox News. These sorts of ideas come from Fearless Leader:
https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/st...34788881076225
Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.
- Rupert Murdoch, Twitter, 9th Jan 2015

Mind you, Rupert has form in this sort of thing. After the deaths of three people in the Sydney seige, he didn't express condolence for the victims but congratulated his newspaper:
https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/st...87566297522176
AUST gets wake-call with Sydney terror. Only Daily Telegraph caught the bloody outcome at 2.00 am. Congrats.
- Rupert Murdoch, Twitter, 15th Dec 2014

Unless we take active, vocal and public stand against the terrorist activities of the very few, people like this will continue to spout such drivel. As an Australian citizen I hereby apologise on behalf of all Australians to the world, for letting this feral escape the penal colony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I suspect thought that Starter watches Fox News. These sorts of ideas come from Fearless Leader:
https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/st...34788881076225
Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.
- Rupert Murdoch, Twitter, 9th Jan 2015

---

You would suspect correctly. I do watch Fox news. I also watch CBS, NBC and MSNBC, though the latter is much further to the left than Fox is to the right. I read several newspapers too; also books and I only occasionally move my lips while reading. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

However your point about Muslims having to take responsibility for the actions of a minority of terrorists within their ranks is actually ironically precisely the same thinking process the terrorists have. You do realise that you are viewed as fair game by these extremists because as an American civilian you are responsible for voting for and funding governments that kill civilians (whether accidental or deliberate is not of interest to them) across the Muslim world? Your failure to oppose these actions means that according to their logic you are as legitimate a target as an American soldier. This is the exact logic they use to justify mass killings of civilians everywhere.

---

Based on actual performance, it would seem the terrorists view everyone not of their mind set as fair game. That includes other Muslims who don't immediately switch to their side. They've killed far more fellow Muslims than Westerners.

Quote:

---

Of course your link to the actions of your government is stronger than the average Muslim living somewhere in the Middle East or Asia who has no control over groups like ISIS, you have a vote and pay taxes to the government they oppose.

---

The difference is that here people get to try and persuade others to come around to their way of thinking without violence and then settle the matter with a vote. And when we lose a vote, we don't start shooting people and blowing people up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Generally the terrorists pretend to do the assaults in the name of their religion but in fact it's all about politics.
Their religion doesn't teach them to kill innocent people and terrorists are just misinterpreting the Quoran.

---

When your religion is the "official" reason for killing people, then it's religion and not politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The difference is that here people get to try and persuade others to come around to their way of thinking without violence and then settle the matter with a vote. And when we lose a vote, we don't start shooting people and blowing people up.

---

You missed my point.

You regularly vote for governments that have (whether Democrat or Republican) continued to kill and support governments that kill Muslims, militants or civilian. Not only that but you fund the killing of civilians directly by paying taxes. You fail to oppose your governments actions by continuing to pay taxes and refusing to voice your opposition to military actions performed by your government. You are therefore as responsible for civilian deaths as the guy pulling the trigger and therefore are a legitimate target for what you would define as a terrorist attack.

See what your logic is like when its flipped around on you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The difference is that here people get to try and persuade others to come around to their way of thinking without violence and then settle the matter with a vote. And when we lose a vote, we don't start shooting people and blowing people up.

---

Historical aside:
Except for the election on November 6, 1860...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

You missed my point.

You regularly vote for governments that have (whether Democrat or Republican) continued to kill and support governments that kill Muslims, militants or civilian. Not only that but you fund the killing of civilians directly by paying taxes. You fail to oppose your governments actions by continuing to pay taxes and refusing to voice your opposition to military actions performed by your government. You are therefore as responsible for civilian deaths as the guy pulling the trigger and therefore are a legitimate target for what you would define as a terrorist attack.

See what your logic is like when its flipped around on you?

---

This quote from you above "....refusing to voice your opposition to military actions performed by your government."
is not truthful, as even a casual acquaintance with media sources here will attest. There is abundant opposition to many of our governments actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Historical aside:
Except for the election on November 6, 1860...

---

The rare exception as opposed to the rule in many places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

This quote from you above "....refusing to voice your opposition to military actions performed by your government."
is not truthful, as even a casual acquaintance with media sources here will attest. There is abundant opposition to many of our governments actions.

---

For all the good it does...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

For all the good it does...

---

True.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Well just make sure that when you come to buy tickets for my stand-up show you ask the ticket officer 'excuse me, are there going to be any jokes about Hitler, Himmler, Amin, Pol Pot or 9/11 in this show?' Just to make sure ;)


Might not be my best gag ever, but that's an example of a joke that includes all of those topics. Was it in bad taste?

---

Give me an example of what you would consider a joke. If you feel that it is funny to make them look like fools and you are Jewish then I would give some credibility to your poking fun in sum way at Hitler or Himmler. What that joke would or could be is anathema to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Yeah a very sad series of events and thankfully no more coppers lost their lives.

I understand why people choose religion but it's not for me. I was brought up as a catholic just for reference here. My family are from the North West of Northern Ireland. My parents claim to be religious, sort of, but have never pushed it onto me and don't practise it. I've never really believed in God and just went along with things because of school and extended family really. By my late teens I barely gave it another thought. :)

---

Henner, I believe that religion in the case of Northern Ireland was just how the cards lay for Nationalist and Loyalists. Those planted from Scotland were Protestant and Presbyterians. The displaced in Northern Ireland were the Catholics. Religion in this case got used by groups that were merely thugs and I doubt half of them had any true allegiance to the religion of their birth.
Henner, I saw a Panorma TV show, I believe it is BBC that showed a group of men now in their 50's and 60's that played football (soccer) together as kids. They were even on a team. This was in the late 60's and 70's and these kids were both Catholic and Protestant. Some went off and joined paramilitary groups. One of them was Bobby Sands. I was intrigued to learn that Bobby Sands was both Catholic and Protestant. Mixed marriage.

Has it been mentioned that the police chief committed suicide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

As Tazio has suggested the French have a long complex relationship with their Algerian and sub-Saharan African migrants. First, a bitter war of independence where the French were pretty brutal then widespread discrimination against Algerian migrants in France. Ever heard of banlieue? The dictionary will tell you its an innocent French word for suburb. The reality is that these are miserable apartment blocks on the outskirts of big cities where undesirables like Algerians, blacks and the poorest and worst of French society find themselves. Its nearly impossible for people there to climb out of poverty as those postcodes are blacklisted. Frequently CVs with those postcodes are simply binned before they're even reviewed for job applications. I would watch La Haine if you want to see what life there is like. As for the French police, their tendency to recourse to violence at the first opportunity is well known. Every time we fly there my wife, caucasian French, reminds me never to look the police in the eye and never EVER talk back regardless of the circumstances. Its easy to see how resentment and frustration boil over into anger and eventually violence. For the vast majority of those in the banlieue their outlets are the riots that hit those areas quite regularly. While I abhor terrorism I can however understand how these three, brought up and raised in the circumstances they were in chose a more organised and violent way of hitting back at the system. And of course it is never possible to prove institutional racism in a country where data collection regarding ethnic origin is simply not performed, hence institutional racism simply does not exist. The French state really is secular in every possible way for better or for worse.

---

What you describe sounds a lot like what you had said about Syria. Le Francois comme Assad? C'est une idee tres interessante... Now maybe those poor lads were freedom fighters. Just kidding. ;)

Seriously, though, democracies work best when they have a certain degree of homogeneity, when you have a core of the society that stays on the same page, more or less. There might be class divisions and conflicting interests, but everybody plays by the rules. If you bring in a minority with a totally different culture, which is too large or resistant to integration, or both, that's a recipe for trouble. I'm not sure there's a ready made solution for the problems of the French, but then they are a resourceful people who have survived worse situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

If you bring in a minority with a totally different culture, which is too large or resistant to integration, or both, that's a recipe for trouble. .

---

Sounds familiar.....:s

I wouldn't call myself religious mostly because I don't like organized religions. Like in almost any kind of organization, in a church or whatever form of organized religious group some will try to impose their views on others in one way or another. I don't like that because it's always the most dubious characters that try to rise on top of the others. Like it's been said, "the trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt". I have my faith though.

I don't really think atheism is the answer and I certainly don't appreciate it much the way some preach their atheism from their really high horses. In the end, like it or not, it may not be a religion, but atheism is definitely a faith and convinced atheists are nothing but just another type of fundamentalists because with all their condescending pretended love for reason their entire belief system is so so strongly based on something that isn't and can't be proven, just a very personal and subjective opinion, pretty much like any other faith. But for some unknown reason they are reasonable and the others are unreasonable.

I'm a Romanian. Over here atheism was all but the official religion for half a century and boy what an enlighten society we were. The communists really took the idea and ran with it. They treated us as nothing but just another species of animals and after 50 years some of us are more animals than human beings.

So Robinho, please tell us more about this beautiful atheism and completely disregard any personal variations it may take. In the real world we really live the consenquences of Lenin, Stalin and Ceausescu, some of the finest NoGod apostles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Ben

we really live the consenquences of Lenin, Stalin and Ceausescu, some of the finest NoGod apostles.

---

In other parts of the world they would add Mao and Pol Pot to the company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Ben

I'm a Romanian. Over here atheism was all but the official religion for half a century and boy what an enlighten society we were. The communists really took the idea and ran with it. They treated us as nothing but just another species of animals and after 50 years some of us are more animals that human beings.

---

But even in the communist period the official cults were recognized and I remember that at least the patriarch of the othodox church and the rabbi of Romania were memebers of MAN ( the institution that represented the legislative power in the state ). Officially the cults weren't banned but were forced to keep a low profile. At the same time a campaign of atheist education was largely sustained and every form of “mystical” manifestation was ridiculised. In reality people still remained religious and even chiefs of communist party secretly followed the rites. I also remember that Ceausescu himself called priests at the funerals of his parents. I also heared of kids that were christened at home, in the tub. It was all about fear. Nobody could ban you from entering a church but it was “suggested” that you'd better don't. cos somebody could have seen you and told this to a certain institution. That could have been an impediment for those who were members of the communist party and wanted to have a career. But I repeat, it was a sort of secret agreement, it wasn't a secret that people were religious but it was pretended that they're not and on different stages most of us ate some sh*t ( some more, some less ) trying to display an atheist attitude at the organized official meetings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Seriously, though, democracies work best when they have a certain degree of homogeneity, when you have a core of the society that stays on the same page, more or less. There might be class divisions and conflicting interests, but everybody plays by the rules. If you bring in a minority with a totally different culture, which is too large or resistant to integration, or both, that's a recipe for trouble. I'm not sure there's a ready made solution for the problems of the French, but then they are a resourceful people who have survived worse situations.

---

I disagree with that analysis. The USA is a case in point. The overwhelming majority of Americans are descended from migrants who have only been there four centuries. Each wave of migration has been bitterly opposed by the wave before, whether it be Protestants opposing Catholic migration, Sephardic Jews opposing Ashkenazi Jewish migration or latterly opposition to Middle Eastern, East Asian and Hispanic migrants. Each brought completely different cultures, each deemed to be a threat to the fabric of American society in some way or other. Yet democracy in the US and economic development has been enriched by the diversity there, not weakened.

The French have got a long way to go, taking steps to actually acknowledge that racism exists would be good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

I disagree with that analysis. The USA is a case in point. The overwhelming majority of Americans are descended from migrants who have only been there four centuries. Each wave of migration has been bitterly opposed by the wave before, whether it be Protestants opposing Catholic migration, Sephardic Jews opposing Ashkenazi Jewish migration or latterly opposition to Middle Eastern, East Asian and Hispanic migrants. Each brought completely different cultures, each deemed to be a threat to the fabric of American society in some way or other. Yet democracy in the US and economic development has been enriched by the diversity there, not weakened.

The French have got a long way to go, taking steps to actually acknowledge that racism exists would be good.

---

All of the groups you've mentioned ended up merging into an all-American middle class, which was and still is the backbone of the country. The cultural differences mattered less than the common values (law obedience, work ethic, respect for property rights, freedom of speech etc.). Everybody was covered by the principles set by the Founding Fathers and people at large accepted those. Same thing happened in France with the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality. Now it faces the problem of its own citizens, which denounce those basic principles in favor of their reinvented or even carefully constructed cultural identities. I wonder how much the attitudes and practices of these self-proclaimed rejects will actually enrich the diverse culture of France.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

All of the groups you've mentioned ended up merging into an all-American middle class, which was and still is the backbone of the country. The cultural differences mattered less than the common values (law obedience, work ethic, respect for property rights, freedom of speech etc.). Everybody was covered by the principles set by the Founding Fathers and people at large accepted those. Same thing happened in France with the principles of liberty, fraternity and equality. Now it faces the problem of its own citizens, which denounce those basic principles in favor of their reinvented or even carefully constructed cultural identities. I wonder how much the attitudes and practices of these self-proclaimed rejects will actually enrich the diverse culture of France.

---

There isn't any point in offering fraternity and equality if in practice this isn't the case, just as proclaiming that they are a democratic republic doesn't make North Korea a democratic republic. I don't think its fair of you to put the entire blame for the racial problems in France on the migrants and ignore the role of the French population and government in causing it too.

The US has gone through a lot of turmoil with its waves of migrants whether it be the racial segregation of blacks, reduced rights for East Asians on the West coast culminating in internment of Japanese Americans during the war or the current debate about Hispanic migrants and harassment of Muslims, however over time the American government has shown willingness to accept previous errors and correct them. This is the difference between France and the US, the French have simply refused to acknowledge there is a problem at all let alone go about correcting anything.

In a way, France is a more modern society than the U.S. With its welfare system it offered migrants way more than they could hope for at home from day one. For the second generation it must have been even easier. They got the level of freedom and the standard of living head and shoulders above than that in their cultural motherland. They got French passports. Even on the lower steps of the social ladder they were doing way better than their brethren in Algeria or Mali. They still didn't integrate. Who's to blame?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

The US has gone through a lot of turmoil with its waves of migrants whether it be the racial segregation of blacks, reduced rights for East Asians on the West coast culminating in internment of Japanese Americans during the war or the current debate about Hispanic migrants and harassment of Muslims, however over time the American government has shown willingness to accept previous errors and correct them. This is the difference between France and the US, the French have simply refused to acknowledge there is a problem at all let alone go about correcting anything.

---

Let's not forget that a large (some would say essential :D) part of the American population didn't achieve legal equality until the early 1900's -- women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

In a way, France is a more modern society than the U.S. With its welfare system it offered migrants way more than they could hope for at home from day one. For the second generation it must have been even easier. They got the level of freedom and the standard of living head and shoulders above than that in their cultural motherland. They got French passports. Even on the lower steps of the social ladder they were doing way better than their brethren in Algeria or Mali. They still didn't integrate. Who's to blame?

---

There's your problem. The welfare system. It is NOT a good thing to make sure people have just a little more than enough to get by. You have taken much of the incentive to learn, be productive and advance yourself out of the equation.

Starter, with all due respect, you're missing the point of a state-funded welfare system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Give me an example of what you would consider a joke. If you feel that it is funny to make them look like fools and you are Jewish then I would give some credibility to your poking fun in sum way at Hitler or Himmler. What that joke would or could be is anathema to me.

---

So only Jewish people are allowed to make jokes about Hitler?

Have you never seen any of the 'Downfall' parodies on youtube?

I joke is simply something that is intended to be humorous.

People say you can't make jokes about rape. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAW8Tzt28Ts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Ben

I don't really think atheism is the answer and I certainly don't appreciate it much the way some preach their atheism from their really high horses. In the end, like it or not, it may not be a religion, but atheism is definitely a faith and convinced atheists are nothing but just another type of fundamentalists because with all their condescending pretended love for reason their entire belief system is so so strongly based on something that isn't and can't be proven, just a very personal and subjective opinion, pretty much like any other faith. But for some unknown reason they are reasonable and the others are unreasonable.

.

---

I disagree.

Faith is believing in something (god in this context) without requiring evidence.

I'm an atheist but I don't have faith that there isn't a god. I just haven't been shown any evidence yet that has convinced me to believe in god. A big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Starter, with all due respect, you're missing the point of a state-funded welfare system.

---

I may be missing the intended point of a state-funded welfare system. I am most definitely NOT missing the result of a state-funded welfare system.

I am all for the so called safety net which would give short term help to those who have encountered crisis of various types in their lives. I have no use for systems which allow "the dole" to be a way of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I disagree.

Faith is believing in something (god in this context) without requiring evidence.

I'm an atheist but I don't have faith that there isn't a god. I just haven't been shown any evidence yet that has convinced me to believe in god. A big difference.

---

That makes you an agnostic, as am I, and not an Atheist. Show me credible evidence and I'll change my mind. Religion is all a moot point anyway since no one is able to prove that their belief is the true one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

That makes you an agnostic, as am I, and not an Atheist. Show me credible evidence and I'll change my mind. Religion is all a moot point anyway since no one is able to prove that their belief is the true one.

---

Well Richard Dawkins still technically defines himself as agnostic, but like him, for all intents and purposes I'm an atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I may be missing the intended point of a state-funded welfare system. I am most definitely NOT missing the result of a state-funded welfare system.

I am all for the so called safety net which would give short term help to those who have encountered crisis of various types in their lives. I have no use for systems which allow "the dole" to be a way of life.

---

If the side-effect of state-funded welfare is that £2 of my yearly tax bill is going to those who use the dole as 'a way of life' then so be it. There are far bigger issues in society than this 'result' of sate welfare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I may be missing the intended point of a state-funded welfare system. I am most definitely NOT missing the result of a state-funded welfare system.

I am all for the so called safety net which would give short term help to those who have encountered crisis of various types in their lives. I have no use for systems which allow "the dole" to be a way of life.

---

I don't mean to hijack this thread (but perhaps an interesting discussion for it's own thread), but the intent of a state-funded welfare system is not so much to benefit the individual but society as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

In a way, France is a more modern society than the U.S. With its welfare system it offered migrants way more than they could hope for at home from day one. For the second generation it must have been even easier. They got the level of freedom and the standard of living head and shoulders above than that in their cultural motherland. They got French passports. Even on the lower steps of the social ladder they were doing way better than their brethren in Algeria or Mali. They still didn't integrate. Who's to blame?

---

Be careful about generalising.

Two second or third generation Algerians killed 17 people last week, one of them was a second generation Algerian or Tunisian police officer shot in the head at point blank range while trying to defend the values of the Republic and the French public. He was a religious Muslim too BTW. As was another Muslim from Mali who worked at the kosher supermarket and risked his life helping Jewish shoppers hide in the basement of the store. Did they integrate or no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

So only Jewish people are allowed to make jokes about Hitler?

Have you never seen any of the 'Downfall' parodies on youtube?

I joke is simply something that is intended to be humorous.

People say you can't make jokes about rape. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAW8Tzt28Ts

---

Charlie Chaplin wasn't Jewish either. Didn't stop him from making The Great Dictator, one of the funniest comedies of its era and unlike other comedians he had the guts to do it while Hitler was alive in a film industry that was terrified of offending the Nazis just in case they won in Europe.