An interesting comparison

Quote: Canyonero

- Because you like jews and hate muslims? Why is that?

Because Jews are westernized and assimilated. Jews took a part of the world that was a wasteland with few resources and made it prosperous. A Jewish nation is our strongest ally.

Muslims are not westernized nor assimilated. Muslims cry "DEATH TO AMERICA!" Muslims held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days i the name of an isamic revolution. Muslims destroyed three buildings on 9/11 in the name of their holy land. Muslims do not like western culture.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because Jews are westernized and assimilated. Jews took a part of the world that was a wasteland with few resources and made it prosperous. A Jewish nation is our strongest ally.

What has a Jewish Nation ever done for the USA, unless you are calling the UK a Jewish Nation or perhaps Canada? This makes no sense.

Mexico has done much more for the US than Israel has. Palestinians were farming oranges there for hundreds of years prior to Britain declaring their land a homeplace for Jews. See Jaffa oranges, made world famous by Palestinians.

In fifty years we have given over fifty billion dollars in aid to Israel. They are one of the most racist country's on earth. They were exposed last year secretly sterilizing Ethiopian Jews. They don't even like Jews.

Quote:

Muslims are not westernized nor assimilated.

I think you got that backwards, the west has assimilated, with 86 congress people being Dual citizens. See PNAC, AIPAC etc.

Quote:

Muslims cry "DEATH TO AMERICA!" Muslims held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days i the name of an isamic revolution.

That was after we [admittedly] overthrew their democratically elected government [Mosedegh] and installed the Shah who murdered a million Iranians. How many of the hostages were tortured or killed?

Quote:

Muslims destroyed three buildings on 9/11 in the name of their holy land.

There still has not been an investigation into who actually carried out the attacks. The congress people that have seen the 28 pages of redacted info say the public should see them.

Follow the money,,,who benefited? 2000 engineers still say, those buildings cannot have all fallen in their own footprint.

Quote: petroglyph

How many of the hostages were tortured or killed?

Pretty much all 52 were tortured. I would suggest you check out how they were treated.

Quote:

2000 engineers still say, those buildings cannot have all fallen in their own footprint.

2000 engineers are idiots then. Unless what I saw on TV was not what I saw on TV. They fell straight down. Should I believe my eyes or just listen to the engineers?

Or are you somehow saying that an entire crew of men set up both the towers and building 7 to implode with nobody noticing all that work going on and all the noise it would make and all the trucks needed to haul everything in for what would have been weeks?

Quote: rxwine

So, do you a call a kid a retard or special needs?

As someone put it to me recently, it's just respect to use terms people want you to use for them. It's disrespect to do otherwise.

Is there something wrong with that idea?

Nothing wrong with it, and I agree, at least to a point. Certainly if I asked you to call me "Reluctant Bull Charging", it wouldn't be long before you started abbreviating me to RBC. If I told you it was offensive to shorten it and demanded to be referred to by my full name "Reluctant Bull Charging", maybe still you'd acquiesce. But certainly there's a point where the requester gets too damn pretentious and you just say "cut the s#$%, Steve". Ever watch Game of Thrones? Do you know of Daenerys Targaryen, the First of Her Name, Queen of Meereen, Queen of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, Protector of the Realm, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, called Daenerys Stormborn, the Unburnt, and Mother of Dragons? Someone comes to me with that mess and I don't care how much they value their culture. You're just Dany now =p

Quote: Canyonero

While I disagree that it is a misuse, since it fits your definition quite nicely, let's not argue about definitions. Even if you ignore that word in my post, I think it is still clear what state of mind and level of discourse I am arguing against.

I know of some things that reach said level of discourse. What I'm interested in and what I'm speaking to is where you draw the line.

Certainly we've all seen real hate. Just go to any online news, find a refugee article, and then scroll to the comments. Most anonymous internet comments fit your criteria, and I'm right there with you. It's not a good look. But, I also see the bad in its opposite. For every person who is far too intolerant and hateful, there is someone who is far too sensitive. No, we can't erect a great wall and man it with snipers every 20'. Neither can we throw open the doors and give everyone free everything.

We have to find that line, and I think OG's post shows he's on it. There is such a thing as too defensive. The 1945 Jap-Am history shows us this. That was too far. But I think the concern for this topic's implications are not above talking about and being concerned with. My town was home to a large psychiatric operation that was shuttered in my lifetime. When I was in my teens, that superstructure was turned into a prison. It then added a medium security branch. It then added a halfway house. It then added a rehab facility. Families of the incarcerated started moving in. My town changed. Fortunately, the change wasn't overwhelming, and many of us long timers are establishing programs to combat the negative changes. But it did change, because that's what happens when "strangers" move in. Will refugees change the places they land? They absolutely will. How so? I don't know. But I think it's worth discussing.

Before I go, I just wanted to address what looks to be a tentative wag of the finger from you about this place or the persons within being racist. As a mod, I tend to allow things to go as far as I possibly can. I enjoy tough topics, and I think the tough conversations we have are the most valuable. As such, I stretch as far as I possibly can. You may remember I did not nuke MickeyCrimm for his infamous super rant. Not because I condoned it or agreed with it, but because I wanted to have that discussion. The same goes for here. If AZD opines that Muslims as a whole cannot assimilate, they hate America, and follow a religion based on violence, no part of me wishes to ban him or do anything that can be construed as thought policing or censorship. What I want is conversation. If you don't like what he said, I want a counter argument. We do that here, and (IMO) do it quite well. Shutting stuff down stagnates the forum, and worse, stagnates you as a person. I know my values and who I am as a person have absolutely changed, and for the better, based on nothing more than discussions and debates held at WoV / DT. I'd like to think some of the things I have said or argued about have likewise changed others. It's hard sometimes, and it's not always clean work, but when that work is done, I rarely have any other feeling than "That was worth it".

I hope that doesn't turn you off to what we have going here.

Quote: AZDuffman

Pretty much all 52 were tortured. I would suggest you check out how they were treated.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/30/world/iran-shows-videotape-interviews-with-14-captives-and-all-but-2-say.html From this article: TEHERAN, Iran, Jan. 29 (Reuters) -In an attempt to rebut charges that United States hostages had been subjected to abuse, Iran today showed filmed interviews with 14 of the 52 Americans made the day before they were released. All but two said they had generally been well treated. I read a few articles, some indicated worse treatment and also some in that article.

I also read this: "Once inside, they seized 66 hostages, mostly diplomats and embassy employees. After a short period of time, 13 of these hostages were released. (For the most part, these 13 were women, African-Americans and citizens of countries other than the U.S.–people who, Khomeini argued, were already subject to “the oppression of American society.”) Some time later, a 14th hostage developed health problems and was likewise sent home." That is from this article http://www.history.com/topics/iran-hostage-crisis So they let go the women and anyone who needed medical assistance. There are certainly worse examples than the Iranian hostages. Just sayin

There is certainly worse treatment of westerners my muslim captors, such as American Terry Waite in Lebanon. Awful. Being a captive or kidnapped is ugly. As far as being a hostage somewhere though, the Iranian thing isn't the worst.

Oddly enough, when I first read about the treatment of the captives was years ago when I was studying alternative health. A doctor in the group had said although he wasn't allowed other treatments what they did have was unlimited clean water. He was amazed at how effective and how much could be treated with clean water?

I won't compare the Iranian hostages with Gitmo detainees.

Quote:

2000 engineers are idiots then.

They often are. So, leave them out of this. These are the only buildings ever, that weren't demolished, to fall in there own footprint. One maybe, two incredible, third one defies logic and physics. Not to mention Silverstein standing there saying "pull it", before it came down. I can't believe that, that small of a fire brought 7 down, strait down, without tipping one way or the other.

Quote:

Should I believe my eyes or just listen to the engineers?

There is an impressive group of very well trained professionals staking their careers on telling what they believe happened. Building Seven fell at "free fall speed" for 70 feet. That just doesn't happen.

Quote:

...Or are you somehow saying that an entire crew of men set up both the towers and building 7 to implode with nobody noticing all that work going on and all the noise it would make and all the trucks needed to haul everything in for what would have been weeks?

I don't know how it happened, or if it took ten men or a hundred over weeks or years? Just saying it fell in it's own footprint, which has never happened in a building that wasn't demolished. It fell at "free fall" speed, which has never happened without an implosion. Never before or since.

Building seven at free fall speed, in it's own footprint:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.” http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collapse/

deleted

Quote: petroglyph

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/30/world/iran-shows-videotape-interviews-with-14-captives-and-all-but-2-say.html From this article: TEHERAN, Iran, Jan. 29 (Reuters) -In an attempt to rebut charges that United States hostages had been subjected to abuse, Iran today showed filmed interviews with 14 of the 52 Americans made the day before they were released. All but two said they had generally been well treated. I read a few articles, some indicated worse treatment and also some in that article.

There is certainly worse treatment of westerners my muslim captors, such as American Terry Waite in Lebanon. Awful. Being a captive or kidnapped is ugly. As far as being a hostage somewhere though, the Iranian thing isn't the worst.

You cannot be serious? An interview taken while someone was still a hostage?

Quote:

I won't compare the Iranian hostages with Gitmo detainees.

Good, because you cannot compare diplomatic workers with terrorists caught on a battlefield. It has been shown time and time again that Gitmo detainees are living better than the average person in their home countries and that if we released them to their home governments they would be tortured and killed in many cases.

Quote:

They often are. So, leave them out of this. These are the only buildings ever, that weren't demolished, to fall in there own footprint. One maybe, two incredible, third one defies logic and physics. Not to mention Silverstein standing there saying "pull it", before it came down. I can't believe that, that small of a fire brought 7 down, strait down, without tipping one way or the other.

There is an impressive group of very well trained professionals staking their careers on telling what they believe happened. Building Seven fell at "free fall speed" for 70 feet. That just doesn't happen.

They were also the only skyscrapers to have planes fly into them and cause such a large, uncontrolled fire. They surely are staking their careers, because we can see what happened. Any engineer claiming "it could not have happened" is one I would surely never hire, I can say that much.

Quote:

I don't know how it happened, or if it took ten men or a hundred over weeks or years? Just saying it fell in it's own footprint, which has never happened in a building that wasn't demolished. It fell at "free fall" speed, which has never happened without an implosion. Never before or since.

And we have never had the same exceptional conditions before or since, either. But I will I guess concede there may have been a guy with a detonator in the nearby grassy knoll.

Quote: petroglyph

I apologize Face, I wrongly attributed beliefs to your forum persona that are not yours.

No apology needed. In fact, it provides a good example.

You heard something, you had a reaction. That's often what happens. But shooting from the hip often misses the target. If something bothers you, it's much better to take a moment to settle, and then address it.

Were it me, I would probably start by correcting. The Indian Removal Act had nothing to do with the lack of assimilation. Acculturation, or the act of changing a culture to coexist with a neighboring one, began back with the treaties between the tribes and Washington. Washington believed the Indian would either die out or assimilate, and was not worth going to war over. It was he who promised that "forever more, this shall be Indian land". I won't say Washington was a "friend" to the native, but I would say he was honorable. He gave his word, and he kept it.

Indians and whites had contact for a long time after that. Natives were moved away from hunter-gathering and into agriculture. Missionaries were present spreading the "love" of Christianity. The assimilation was taking place. The IRA was nothing more than a land grab. Non-native southerners wanted those lands. I wish there was more to add, but it's really that simple.

You could see AZD's misinformation, judge him for it, and hold a grudge. And by doing so, you'd miss a lot of value. Gun talk, DIY talk, whatever it happens to be. It would be your loss. You could also flip out on him. That puts you at risk of suspension, it causes divisiveness, and maybe some lurkers start thinking "just another wahoo on the warpath". Or you could just bring some facts to the table and have a civil debate. I just posted a correction to his post. AZD is a reasonable man, he can look it up himself. Should he do so, he again is reasonable, so I bet he would admit he missed the mark and would likely concede and post a different example to better illustrate his point. And then... we just move on. But in doing so, we just made a huge thing happen. Information is spread. People get educated. An understanding is met. Any hard feelings are squashed, and generally, a mutual respect is formed. As I've said before, AZD and I disagree on many things. But nearly all of them have been handled in just this fashion, and that's why (IMO) we get along so well. Even when we can't find common ground and end in disagreement, the way we conduct ourselves is more than enough positive to overshadow our disagreement.

Even when the comment comes from somebody a lot less reasonable than AZD, calmness prevails. Even if you never convince your opponent, there are tens or hundreds of onlookers watching the debate from the shadows. If you flip out over every perceived slight, it makes you look like a loon even when your emotions are justified.

When I see AZD's wide and sweeping comments about "all Muslims", I obviously disagree. But I know he cannot convey his full opinion in one text or post, so it's not time to break out the pitchforks. Just based on numbers alone, I know a Muslim has to have relocated to Pittsburgh in AZD's lifetime. I bet he didn't even notice. Perhaps an entire family of them moved very close to him. Doubt he noticed, doubt he cared. But we do know there have been examples where bad has happened. Perhaps it was EB, who brought up "no-go zones" where certain groups basically take over a neighborhood. We see this "clan-ism" all over. China towns, German towns, whatever, like attracts like. I know, based on my own experience, that an influx can change your home, just as the prison family influx has changed mine. So when I see his comment, though my first reaction is disagreement, I do see the point. From there, we can debate a number of things. We can debate Muslim attitude and beliefs, we can debate numbers and whether there's even a big enough influx to make a change, we can debate how state and federal law may be affected or come into play. The point is, we'd be talking, discussing, debating. If you see his comment and immediately flip out, none of that is possible.

Quote: Canyonero

I like your interpretation that this is really a fear of change. It makes sense. And it might help to understand those people a little better and help others not to fall for that kind of rethoric.

Thank you. Unfortunately that's just the argument, not the cause.

The cause is plain and simple racism. But if they argue that, they won't get anywhere. Therefore they dress up their arguments.

Take another one: immigrants depress wages, take jobs away from the natives, and they use up welfare benefits while contributing nothing in taxes. This argument package-deal has been debunked so many times, it's amazing they'd still bring it up. But they do.

The one argument closest to the core belief is the one used by Trump: they're all criminals and rapists anyway. Truth is, immigrants are human (surprise!) and differ only slightly from other groups. Therefore some of them are criminals, to be sure, but most aren't. But you'll hear a lot more, and more loudly, when an immigrant, especially an illegal one, commits murder.

The worse thing is this one problem would be the easiest to solve if there were rational immigration laws in place. People trying to get in at checkpoints and following a procedure could easily have their backgrounds examined. If criminals persisted in entering illegally, then you'd only have a handful trying to do so, and securing the border would be a simpler matter.

It bears noting I'm not reducing the whole immigration and refugee debates to racism out of convenience, nor to demonize anyone, nor due to notions of PC, nor even to score points. But rather because that's the way it looks. There's always some group singled out, and it's usually a poorly regarded group facing some prejudice. Be this group Italians, Mexicans, Arabs, Muslims, etc.

I also do not mean to imply anyone who is against more open immigration is racist. But the badly-conceived and articulated arguments, in particular the economic one, are rooted in racist notions even if these are not argued openly.