Over 15,000 people, including neo-Nazis, turn up for anti-Muslim protests in Germany

[Deleted]

Being against criminals that commit mass murders is honorable. You do not need to bring religion into play to stand against them. And you'll have a much easier time arguing against them. And, unsurprisingly, you'll suddenly find that the vast majority of muslims is actually on your side, too. They hate them probably more than we do, because they give muslims all over the world a bad rep.

Knowing several Muslims that is not always the case. What you'll find as your social experience expands is that people tend to be the same over the world. Just like you have closet racists who won't outright say they don't like immigrants (I'm not one of them, even if you might think so), there's plenty of Muslims who will not take up arms for but still silently support things like Shariah law for western countries.

[Slant]

Non-western immigration is a widely used and understood term, you can't just start ignoring it because it suits your argument. it's one of the two major groups you divide immigrants into when looking at statistics.

Immigration != asylum. Learn the language. Immigration involves work permits. Asylum doesn't. You can't just redefine words to fit your argument.

[Acelius]

Being against criminals that commit mass murders is honorable. You do not need to bring religion into play to stand against them. And you'll have a much easier time arguing against them. And, unsurprisingly, you'll suddenly find that the vast majority of muslims is actually on your side, too. They hate them probably more than we do, because they give muslims all over the world a bad rep.

You can't avoid bringing religion into this. If they can interpret the Koran in a way that they can justify blowing up innocent people including children, then you HAVE to include religion.

[Deleted]

Oh my fucking god... do you understand how asylum works? Jesus... of course they are a net loss, since your country doesn't allow them to work!

Oh my fucking god, do you understand how Sweden works? You're allowed to work as an asylum seeker. In fact, you're expected to.

And they're not meant to contribute, it's your countries fucking job to grant asylum until they can go back.

You wot? We barely give out any temporary residency permits. Asylum seekers are, for the most part, granted permanent residency permit. Which means they're here to stay and they should contribute.

[Deleted]

Oh my fucking god... do you understand how asylum works? Jesus... of course they are a net loss, since your country doesn't allow them to work! And they're not meant to contribute, it's your countries fucking job to grant asylum until they can go back.

But I see now how it is... you redefine borders and language just to fit your argument. I get it. This discussion is over for me.

Actually no, because Sweden, unlike Germany, give PERMANENT RESIDENCIES TO ASYLUM SEEKERS. This means that no, they're not being supported until they go back. They're given full rights to social benefits for as long as they like, regardless of status in the country they fled from. While I understand that you assume whatever Germany does to be the accepted standard for the entire world that isn't always the case. This is probably why certain words and expressions will have different meanings to us, which means we might end up disagreeing because we're talking about different things as if they were the same.

[Revi]

Immigration != asylum. Learn the language. Immigration involves work permits. Asylum doesn't. You can't just redefine words to fit your argument.

Who's been talking about asylum? I haven't.

I said earlier, that if you want to argue in favor of immigration from a humanitarian stance (e.g. helping asylum seekers is the right thing to do), then just do that and be honest about it. Don't throw around claims that they're financially beneficial, just be honest and say you think we should help despite the cost.

[Deleted]

Asylum seekers are, for the most part, granted permanent residency permit. Which means they're here to stay and they should contribute.

They come from the hellholes of the world the only reasonable demand is that you earn premium by helping them.


Fun fact about german asylum is that they are here to stay too in practice just that they stay in legal nirvana for extended periods of time.

[Slant]

Knowing several Muslims that is not always the case. What you'll find as your social experience expands is that people tend to be the same over the world. Just like you have closet racists who won't outright say they don't like immigrants (I'm not one of them, even if you might think so), there's plenty of Muslims who will not take up arms for but still silently support things like Shariah law for western countries.

*rolleyes* That is fearmongering right there. And a load of crap. Start living in a densely populated country full of muslims, then you can talk.

- - - Updated - - -

Who's been talking about asylum? I haven't.

I said earlier, that if you want to argue in favor of immigration from a humanitarian stance (e.g. helping asylum seekers is the right thing to do), then just do that and be honest about it. Don't throw around claims that they're financially beneficial, just be honest and say you think we should help despite the cost.

Tiili Mooneye and Adugu seem to think that both terms are the same, I was responding to them. If you exclude asylum seekers, suddenly your side loses all the net loss you claim to have. Eastern Europeans are not a net loss and almost 100% of the MENA region people coming to the EU are asylum seekers, unless you mean the few select arabs from the Emirates/Iranian area that are mostly highly qualified academics earning a net profit for the country they're immigrating into.

You guys are just full of crap and that's the truth of it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I know some people that belive McCafe and McDonald's aren't the same thing, I wouldn't trust these people to start their cars in the morning let alone impact my thinking without any special qualification that could be independently validated.

[StayTuned]

People with different opinions (especially the ones where the facts are not on your side) are always worrying to the true fascist mind.

Are you paid by PEGIDA to spout your nonsense? I have yet to see anything worthwhile of you, including citations for that stuff you say

[Deleted]

Immigration is beneficial taking in asylum seekers is a good deed as long as you dont overstrain your own economy by it.

So can we move on?

[Deleted]

If you exclude asylum seekers, suddenly your side loses all the net loss you claim to have.

Yeah, no shit. Because we barely have anyone that's came here due to labor migration from those regions, because of the rules being too harsh on labor migration.

[Slant]

You can't avoid bringing religion into this. If they can interpret the Koran in a way that they can justify blowing up innocent people including children, then you HAVE to include religion.

Sooo, basically when someone goes out and kills someone because God (as in the christian God) told him to, it's Christianity being at fault? What kind of logic is that? The bible is just as open to interpretation as the Koran is. And in history, people abused Christianity as a reason to go to pointless wars, too. I think blaming an entire religion is wrong... it's on the same page as not seperating politics from religion. Whenever you combine those two, it's a big mess waiting to happen. We can talk religion or politics, but never both. That's why I keep promoting not to refer to them as muslims, but perhaps muslim extremists or simply terrorists or criminals.

Another reason is that bringing religion into it is in a weird kind of way validating their crimes. They don't deserve that. They're criminal sociopaths with a knack for mass murder. Treat them as such, don't give them the religious label to validate them.

[Acelius]

[QUOTE=Slant;31366388]*rolleyes* That is fearmongering right there. And a load of crap. Start living in a densely populated country full of muslims, then you can talk.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know a whole lot of muslims but one of the few i do know supports Sharia and says it outright. It wouldn't surprise me if alot more supported it in silence but are afraid to admit it. Just like closet racists.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Immigration is beneficial taking in asylum seekers is a good deed as long as you dont overstrain your own economy by it.

So can we move on?

Sorry, but I have to call you on this, Which immigrants, WHICH Asylum Seekers, because I guarantee you if the Asylum Seekers were of a certain race fuck their religon, or the strain on resources, some would welcome them with open arms.


Same with immigration.


These people have no business dictating policy or being considered for more than what they actually suggest as opposed to what they pretend to. Immigration and Asylum Seeking can be a problem and deserve a prudent undertaking and attention.

[Deleted]

I don't know a whole lot of muslims but one of the few i do know supports Sharia and says it outright. It wouldn't surprise me if alot more supported it in silence but are afraid to admit it. Just like closet racists.

Those muslims that I do know, don't support sharia and would never think to support it. They fled from regions where they were being oppressed due to extremists. They've adapted pretty much fully to life here except their faith.

[Deleted]

Yes exactly, I think it's the same thing as protesting police abuse and discrimination and Al Sharpton shows up, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can take a HIKE, I am not showing up to support that cause either if those two are part of it.

Ok, at least you're consistent. I can dig that, very few people are sadly.

[Acelius]

Sooo, basically when someone goes out and kills someone because God (as in the christian God) told him to, it's Christianity being at fault? What kind of logic is that? The bible is just as open to interpretation as the Koran is. And in history, people abused Christianity as a reason to go to pointless wars, too. I think blaming an entire religion is wrong... it's on the same page as not seperating politics from religion. Whenever you combine those two, it's a big mess waiting to happen. We can talk religion or politics, but never both. That's why I keep promoting not to refer to them as muslims, but perhaps muslim extremists or simply terrorists or criminals.

Another reason is that bringing religion into it is in a weird kind of way validating their crimes. They don't deserve that. They're criminal sociopaths with a knack for mass murder. Treat them as such, don't give them the religious label to validate them.

Of course it is. If you can justify the killing of innocent people because your religion says you can, then it's the religions fault to begin with. Even if it doesn't say so directly but people can interpret it to be okay to kill innocent people then the religion is at fault.

[Deleted]

I don't know a whole lot of muslims but one of the few i do know supports Sharia and says it outright. It wouldn't surprise me if alot more supported it in silence but are afraid to admit it. Just like closet racists.

I think 3rd gen are allot more modern than 1 nd 2 gen immigrants from mena countrys the trend is positive even if the "is" condition is not perfect.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Personally, if one ISN'T a racist or isn't a bigot, I would say, it would be more fair to say, "HEY I JUST DON'T TRUST PEOPLE OF THIS RELIGION AND HERE IS WHY"


I think that is honest and genuine to suggest that a level of trust might be earned by one group in a way vs another.