ya the bulls DO die in bullfighting. Like I pretty much knew this but it’s so bizarre i adh to google it to know for sure
i guess its not that bizarre, killing cows is pretty routine for beef
i guess its actually totally normal
do you expect your burger to have lost a duel to the death
Julius, bring me my pistol! We have burgers to make!
- local diners in the early 1800s, probably
The recent UK polls are killing me, because despite the surge in labor, the fact that UKIPers are now voting Tory and their districts are first-past-the-post means that the Tories are likely going to win. (Labor, the libdems and the SNP together get >50% of the vote in some polls.)
raginrayguns: i was telilng some europeans that having > 3 parties was dumb but they werent buying it
It’s a good idea if you have an electoral system set up to support it properly. If we had a proper system we could have a Trump party separate from the republicans and a Bernie party separate from the dems. Then maybe people would be a little less insane because they’d have parties that represent them.
I would actually like for both the Bernie and Trump parties to exist, since they might actually do something about the trade balance and conditions for American workers, tbh. I wonder if they might have less regulatory capture, too, but I’d have to check that against foreign countries where multiple parties are the norm.
And yes, I don’t think cousins should marry, since that’s relevant to all of this apparently.
So you would support a law banning (let’s say new) cousin marriage, even if it would massively disproportionately effect only one ethnic group, who are predominantly non-white immigrants?
Because that would be a cultural change brought about by immigration, one that has non-trivial bad effects, one that has been stubbornly persisting, the kind you lot are always insisting isn’t real, and banning it would not be respecting cultural diversity and would mostly be dunking on one particular culture.
I would propose a series of bets with you, but I’m fairly confident that’s against some kind of American anti-gambling law.
Solid on dropping the rest of the argument to focus on this tangent you are framing in such a way so as to reach a conclusion you’ve already arrived at that has nothing to do with the original topic of conversation to claim an easy victory without having to grapple with any claims being made
Well, you didn’t fare particularly well against that pie chart posted by another user, but here’s the thing:
I have more than one issue that I care about. Not having Islamic Terrorism would be great, but you lot seem obsessed with importing Muslims and ignoring the effects thereof. I’m obviously not going to win you over on it, including on the difference in kinds of terrorism, even though there is the rather glaring flaw that without 9/11, Bush isn’t able to wage the Iraq War, which is literally the opposite of decreasing US involvement in the Middle East. (And do people really, honestly believe that blowing up a few near-empty buildings or disrupting the power grid or something along those lines would have allowed for the GWB Iraq War?)
However, just because we have to deal with some side effects of your policies doesn’t mean we have to deal with all of them. One side effect is increasing rates of multi-generational cousin marriage, which we aren’t supposed to talk about, and its bad effects that are worse than isolated single instances of cousin marriage.
So if I get you and others that aren’t right-wingers to agree that banning cousin marriage would be good, maybe that slightly increases the support for banning it, which helps not only monetarily but probably also with extremism, and I still come out having some small net gain on the conversation.
The right praising Japanese failures is a recurring theme. They often laud Japan’s restrictive immigration policy despite the fact that it is a huge contributor to Japan’s economic problems at the moment. Of course, they would respond that the protection of national culture/race comes first, but that philosophy is a pretty good way to ensure your culture will very literally die
The thing is, from what I’ve seen, the dogmatic economists and the liberals and all the lot yelling at them have overstated their case on just how big this problem is for their economy, and they’re going very hard on automation which is about to push many people out of work in the West over the next few decades, and while we in the West are told we need to “get used to” Islamic terrorist attacks, and will probably soon be told we need to ignore FGM, etc, in the name of cultural diversity… they don’t have to deal with that problem essentially at all. (And that isn’t the only factor - there are social Rules Japanese corporations follow that would not be feasible under mass migration, for instance.)
Why should we have to get used to terrorist attacks? What on Earth is so bloody valuable about Islam that we can’t get a similar advantage from taking Hindus, Buddhists, etc instead?
“while we in the West are told we need to ‘get used to’ Islamic terrorist attacks”
No, we need to “get used to” terrorist attacks generally, which will be an inevitable consequence of asymmetric military conditions and technological development and can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means
“will probably soon be told we need to ignore FGM, etc, in the name of cultural diversity…”
No, you won’t, but you’ll find a few anecdotes of people saying that and then use them to justify the belief that it’s a popular social narrative
“What on Earth is so bloody valuable about Islam that we can’t get a similar advantage from taking Hindus, Buddhists, etc instead?”
A few things here worthy of note: terrorism is an asymmetric military tactic utilized by radical groups regardless of ideology and belief and there are groups of both Hindus and Buddhists who are currently using terrorist tactics; immigration is not a primary contributor to terrorism and those who claim otherwise have an extremely weak case that they’ve made seem legitimate by repeating it over and over; and if you genuinely think that terrorism is an intrinsically Islamic phenomenon you have a tenuous grasp of both the nature of terrorism and global demography
“…utilized by radical groups regardless of ideology…”
“…can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means…”
How many deportations would it take to make the means unreasonable?
Yeah, see, here’s the thing, I haven’t been functioning well for a long time, so I don’t have reams of papers put out by my ideological peers about how “no really, this is how it works, nothing to see here, please move along” but I know the data like this is out there.
And yes, I don’t think cousins should marry, since that’s relevant to all of this apparently.
So you would support a law banning (let’s say new) cousin marriage, even if it would massively disproportionately effect only one ethnic group, who are predominantly non-white immigrants?
Because that would be a cultural change brought about by immigration, one that has non-trivial bad effects, one that has been stubbornly persisting, the kind you lot are always insisting isn’t real, and banning it would not be respecting cultural diversity and would mostly be dunking on one particular culture.
I would propose a series of bets with you, but I’m fairly confident that’s against some kind of American anti-gambling law.
And you know what? I’d much fucking rather have “GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE MID EAST AMERICA! REEEEEEE!” as the running Mid-East origin terrorist campaign, since while it would be ten times as expensive in terms of destroyed Western infrastructure, it might stop dumbass American politicians from interfering in the Mid East again, and again, and going “no this time will be different and it totally won’t just simultaneously kill people and waste absurd amounts of money”.
So then can’t we just leave [the Japanese] be?
In a competitive environment, we should expect that only the ideologies that replicate themselves and spread will survive, much like animals in nature. Most encounters will therefore be with virulent ideologies.
Globalist Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and so on, including their ideologies of “human rights”, are no exception to this.
So no, they can’t well just leave Japan alone. That would be an admission of failure and that Globalism/Neoliberalism/etc is not universal in value.
Edit: Also, “different ways are optimal for different countries” is a very Nationalist, and thus Villainous, way of seeing the world.
The right praising Japanese failures is a recurring theme. They often laud Japan’s restrictive immigration policy despite the fact that it is a huge contributor to Japan’s economic problems at the moment. Of course, they would respond that the protection of national culture/race comes first, but that philosophy is a pretty good way to ensure your culture will very literally die
The thing is, from what I’ve seen, the dogmatic economists and the liberals and all the lot yelling at them have overstated their case on just how big this problem is for their economy, and they’re going very hard on automation which is about to push many people out of work in the West over the next few decades, and while we in the West are told we need to “get used to” Islamic terrorist attacks, and will probably soon be told we need to ignore FGM, etc, in the name of cultural diversity… they don’t have to deal with that problem essentially at all. (And that isn’t the only factor - there are social Rules Japanese corporations follow that would not be feasible under mass migration, for instance.)
Why should we have to get used to terrorist attacks? What on Earth is so bloody valuable about Islam that we can’t get a similar advantage from taking Hindus, Buddhists, etc instead?
“while we in the West are told we need to ‘get used to’ Islamic terrorist attacks”
No, we need to “get used to” terrorist attacks generally, which will be an inevitable consequence of asymmetric military conditions and technological development and can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means
“will probably soon be told we need to ignore FGM, etc, in the name of cultural diversity…”
No, you won’t, but you’ll find a few anecdotes of people saying that and then use them to justify the belief that it’s a popular social narrative
“What on Earth is so bloody valuable about Islam that we can’t get a similar advantage from taking Hindus, Buddhists, etc instead?”
A few things here worthy of note: terrorism is an asymmetric military tactic utilized by radical groups regardless of ideology and belief and there are groups of both Hindus and Buddhists who are currently using terrorist tactics; immigration is not a primary contributor to terrorism and those who claim otherwise have an extremely weak case that they’ve made seem legitimate by repeating it over and over; and if you genuinely think that terrorism is an intrinsically Islamic phenomenon you have a tenuous grasp of both the nature of terrorism and global demography
No, we need to “get used to” terrorist attacks generally, which will be an inevitable consequence of asymmetric military conditions and technological development and can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means
Look man, you might come back and say that “well the IRA used terrorist attacks”, and yeah they did, and they killed people, but they also would give warning allowing evacuations before blowing up something big and expensive and not end up killing anyone. Why?
Because they were national separatists. They had a far more specific and measurable goal, which they were arguably more successful at. In other words they had a different ideology, and different ideologies produce different behavior, which is the entire reason anyone cares what ideology someone follows to begin with. And religions are very much like ideologies.
Much like FGM is cultural, and cousin marriage is cultural, and different cultures produce different behaviors besides what food you eat and what rug you put in your house.
So I’m going to ask a test question here to see how serious you really are: Are you willing to ban cousin marriage, or would you argue that doing so is a form of unfair ethnic discrimination?
No, we need to “get used to” terrorist attacks generally, which will be an inevitable consequence of asymmetric military conditions and technological development and can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means
So do we need to get used to #PrayForEngland being renewed each year, or sometimes more than once a year? Or does the difference in the rate of terrorism between different groups mean that we might only need #PrayForEngland about once per decade?
Have you ever noticed that when we #PrayForJapan, it’s usually because of some enormous natural disaster that could not have been prevented, and not because of some massive terrorist attack? They have had terrorist attacks, but the frequency is much lower, and as such they’re not having to “get used to” it.
No, you won’t, but you’ll find a few anecdotes of people saying that and then use them to justify the belief that it’s a popular social narrative
I can see a push for the legalization of polygamy on the horizon, I’m confident it will start to come in about ten years, which we were promised would not happen. ‘Soon’ was probably overblowing it, the FGM thing will come in 20 if conditions don’t change, as demographic changes transform it into an issue that can be captured for votes by the larger political parties. After all, we already allow male ‘circumcision’, so what’s one more step? The law won’t stop such a political transformation because you get the laws that the culture supports, which is why Chechnya has Chechen laws and we don’t.
A few things here worthy of note: terrorism is an asymmetric military tactic utilized by radical groups regardless of ideology and belief and there are groups of both Hindus and Buddhists who are currently using terrorist tactics; immigration is not a primary contributor to terrorism and those who claim otherwise have an extremely weak case that they’ve made seem legitimate by repeating it over and over; and if you genuinely think that terrorism is an intrinsically Islamic phenomenon you have a tenuous grasp of both the nature of terrorism and global demography
It weren’t Hindus what blew up the fucking towers mate.
I’m going to guess that the Hindu terrorism is a result of some kind of spiraling ethnic tension (probably with Islam!) or national separatism, and that their tactics suit this. I’d also bet money that the rate of terrorist deaths caused per Hindu is lower by at least a factor of 2.
Now you might well point to US intervention in the Middle East, but you know what “Get The Fuck Out of the Middle East” would look like as a terrorist campaign intended to be actually successful? It would look more like the IRA, and less like this bullshit we’re getting now.
The right praising Japanese failures is a recurring theme. They often laud Japan’s restrictive immigration policy despite the fact that it is a huge contributor to Japan’s economic problems at the moment. Of course, they would respond that the protection of national culture/race comes first, but that philosophy is a pretty good way to ensure your culture will very literally die
The thing is, from what I’ve seen, the dogmatic economists and the liberals and all the lot yelling at them have overstated their case on just how big this problem is for their economy, and they’re going very hard on automation which is about to push many people out of work in the West over the next few decades, and while we in the West are told we need to “get used to” Islamic terrorist attacks, and will probably soon be told we need to ignore FGM, etc, in the name of cultural diversity… they don’t have to deal with that problem essentially at all. (And that isn’t the only factor - there are social Rules Japanese corporations follow that would not be feasible under mass migration, for instance.)
Why should we have to get used to terrorist attacks? What on Earth is so bloody valuable about Islam that we can’t get a similar advantage from taking Hindus, Buddhists, etc instead?
It’s gonna get awkward when someone discovers the asshole gene and assholes become a Protected Class.
