You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Religion being a "religion" is irrelevant to my points. Having the ability to indoctrinate people has nothing to do with belief in god or whatever else. Nationalism falls in the same category, I just didn't bring it up because it wasn't involved here.
I didn't say anything about "what if religion didn't exist"
You're too busy being offended to even consider the posts you're responding to. I even chose my wording very carefully to make sure I didn't get into a debate about religion itself.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I'm often too lazy to explain this sort of thing to narrow-minded people like Skinny, so your comments and the one done by inv4zn in the other stupid christian sacrifice thread started by crackhead Ulic are greatly appreciated.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I'm often too lazy to explain this sort of thing to narrow-minded people like Skinny, so your comments and the one done by inv4zn in the other stupid christian sacrifice thread started by crackhead Ulic are greatly appreciated.
You say I'm narrow minded, yet I'm the only one here asking open minded questions. I've even been very careful with my words not to take too strong of a stance for either side. I'm just trying to get people to respond before continuing to form my own opinion. The problem is, instead of being open minded, I get narrow minded answers like "BLARGH YOU HATE DEH RELIGOUS PEOPEL " and the ball huggers that follow those posts.
If you took the time to consider what's being said, with an open mind, you might have been able to see what I've been getting at here.
If there was a group of 30,000 atheist Germans around the world committing terrorist attacks against anyone who wasn't German would draw the exact same conclusions. Hating anyone because they're not like you fucking sucks. It doesn't matter if the tool you use is Islam or Christianity or any other religion. It doesn't matter if it's because of nationality or socio-economic status. This type of shit needs to stop for humanity to progress.
But yeah, continue to harp about how much I hate religion. Let's just keep going around in circles about that.
you need to know that humans are indeed born with sins (or use the term flaws if the term "sins" so disturb your sensitive heart). As you become a parent, you will start to clearly see that your lovely children will start lying to you and become ever so greedy without anyone teaching them to be that way.
Maybe. Unless they grew up in complete isolation, there's no way to be sure there was zero external influence and they were in fact "born this way"
If an individual is a part of a commune/community, there will always be external influences such as competition for resources and that's where greed comes in...survival of the fittest
So let's see if I've got this straight: a small extremist faction is bombing and killing and maiming and doing all sorts of nasty shit, both at home and abroad, and when their countrymen decide to escape the madness for a better life, they should all be turned away because, well, they might be terrorists themselves because they share the same country and religion, right?
That about cover it?
Spoiler!
Posted by a friend this morning, along with the following link. Well worth the read.
Quote:
This has specific significance to me because I'm an Irish immigrant... No one has ever suggested my family might have been terrorists, not once. Yet there are people in my family who were involved with the IRA during the Troubles. And that war was about politics, not a doctrinal dispute between Catholics v. Protestants (it wasn't that simple, it never is.) When I point this out to bigots, the usual answer is 'well that's different, the Irish weren't killing people internationally'. Yes, we were. Just not this nation. So if you are someone who is against assisting refugees, or feels it's OK to make crass jokes about Muslim culture (or any race or culture for that matter)., please do me a favor and unfriend me immediately. I have no time for your ignorance and you don't belong in my space. I'm an immigrant from a formerly violent place... And it's not been that long since Ireland got it's shit together.
So let's see if I've got this straight: a small extremist faction is bombing and killing and maiming and doing all sorts of nasty shit, both at home and abroad, and when their countrymen decide to escape the madness for a better life, they should all be turned away because, well, they might be terrorists themselves because they share the same country and religion, right?
That about cover it?
Spoiler!
Posted by a friend this morning, along with the following link. Well worth the read.
The thing about bigots and racists etc, is that many people respond to them in ways that are not helpful. We should be trying to educate them instead of ignoring them and pushing them away from our lives. My parents are old school (homophobic, somewhat racist etc) and instead of just ignoring them, my siblings and I have slowly brought up viewpoints and they slowly changed their stances over the years. But yes some people are too dense and after attempts to educate them it's just too difficult to change them and they should be unfriended.
Sometimes people don't realize how much of a racist or bigot they are until other people point it out to them or see the other side of the arguments. I've had views and opinions changed many times in my life, which is why I always wish to see different viewpoints and arguments.
So let's see if I've got this straight: a small extremist faction is bombing and killing and maiming and doing all sorts of nasty shit, both at home and abroad, and when their countrymen decide to escape the madness for a better life, they should all be turned away because, well, they might be terrorists themselves because they share the same country and religion, right?
That about cover it?
Spoiler!
Posted by a friend this morning, along with the following link. Well worth the read.
Hiding among refugees?
Those revelations come as new details about the attackers emerge.
At least one of the terrorists apparently entered the European Union hidden among the wave of refugees arriving on European shores.
European officials believe, CNN's Christiane Amanpour reports, that there is "a very professional new squad of terrorists inserting themselves into some of wthese migrant voyages."
One of three bombers who detonated themselves at the Stade de France late Friday arrived on the Greek island of Leros on October 3 among numerous Syrian refugees, Amanpour reported, citing an unnamed French senator who was briefed by the Ministry of the Interior.
The man declared himself to be Syrian, said his name was Ahmad al Mohammad and was, under new procedures set up to help refugees, issued a new emergency passport or similar document.
brb screaming RACISM and BIGOTRY when their is literally definitive proof that they are hiding amongst refugees lmao
BUT i'm sure its a great idea to compromise or own security and bend over backwards to accommodate these people.
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,645
Thanked 2,191 Times in 1,131 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy
So let's see if I've got this straight: a small extremist faction is bombing and killing and maiming and doing all sorts of nasty shit, both at home and abroad, and when their countrymen decide to escape the madness for a better life, they should all be turned away because, well, they might be terrorists themselves because they share the same country and religion, right?
That about cover it?
Spoiler!
Posted by a friend this morning, along with the following link. Well worth the read.
How do you know the refugee we are bringing in isn't part of the " small extremist faction is bombing and killing and maiming and doing all sorts of nasty shit, both at home and abroad." Can you 100% guarantee all the refugee are safe and is no threat to Canada and doesn't pose a security thread?
We have to bring in 25k refugee by end of year. There is no way to possible run all the security checks to make sure they are safe. https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wor...tering-the-us/ and I qoute " FBI director James Comey said during a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on Wednesday that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration says will be allowed to come to the U.S." If the FBI admits they can't run all the security checks to ensure 10k refugee they bring in is no thread, how can we Canada ensure all 25k refugee we bring in are no thread to Canadians. We have less man power than the states, we are not as good as gathering inel as the US.
Back in those country there are hardly any records of personal info. If we can't determine if they are the "small extremist faction is bombing and killing and maiming and doing all sorts of nasty shit, both at home and abroad" or the "same no thread citizen" we are putting our own citizens at risk.
Why are we putting our citizens at risk when other countries who shares the same boarders with these refugee's countries refuse to let them in? Why is European nations tightening its restriction on refugees?
^
Dude how many people enter Canada every single day from land, sea and air? How do we guarantee all those people don't have ill intent (with far less checking and random inspection I might add)?
I really wonder about those who are complaining about the Syrian refugees coming to Canada had family immigrate to Canada as well? I know my family came here from eastern Europe after the end of WW2 and I'm so very thankful they had the opportunity. One thing that Makes Canada great is our multiculturalism and our willing to give people that have nothing the ability to come to a country to be able to live in equal freedom and peace. It really makes me sad seeing all of this hate and racism, thats not the mind frame that built Canada and helped make us one of the best countries on planet Earth.
So those saying we need to stop allowing the refugees for security concerns? Shall we close the borders? Shall we start sending previously landed immigrants back based on their religion due to heightened probability of a terrorist attack from them?
What exactly is it that will make you happy?
For how many immigrants or first generation Canadians there are on here, there sure is a lot of fucking entitlement to YOUR personal country. Take a look at how you and so many of your friends and family ended up here, wether it was 10, or 100 years ago.
I come from a country where 200 people are murdered every. fucking. day. Violence is rampant. My family came in legally and passed through all the proper security checks, because there are a ton of people in Brazil that will fuck you up if given the chance.
So why take the chance? Do the proper checks, help out people who are considered low risk, and it's all fine and dandy.
Edit: Or don't. Start letting Brazilians in indiscriminately, and those little gang wars in Surrey will look like kids playing cops and robbers.
That's the real risk.
__________________
Have an E38? Check out E38Registry.org!
I simply do not trust people who display an inability or unwillingness to take a step back from their beliefs in the face of overwhelming fact. People of all religions, modern feminists, truthers, people who believe in ghosts/ouija boards/alien visitation, etc. - they all display irrational thought to some degree. Under the right circumstances, irrational thought can turn to dangerous levels, much like you see with these terrorists. If being distrustful of people who exhibit unshakeable irrational beliefs, from the clueless university social justice warrior to the ISIS sympathiser, makes me a bigot and not someone exercising common sense, then so be it.
Religious parents have lots of reasons for wanting to bring their kids up within their chosen faith, and one of those reasons will often be the desire to ensure that their child grows up to become a generous, fair-minded and altruistic individual.
But does it work? A new international study has examined the behaviour of children growing up in six countries and found that the opposite is in fact the case, with children from religious upbringings demonstrating significantly less altruism than their non-religious peers.
“Our findings contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others,” said Jean Decety, a professor in psychology and psychiatry at the University of Chicago. “In our study, kids from atheist and non-religious families were, in fact, more generous.”
A team of developmental psychologists studied the behaviour of more than 1,100 children between the ages of five and 12 in six countries: Canada, China, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey and the US. What they were looking for was the children’s tendency to share – a measure of their altruism and generosity – and also how likely they were to judge others or punish them for perceived bad behaviour.
To measure kids’ sense of altruism, the researchers had the children play a game in which they had the ability to share stickers (if they chose to, that is). To gauge their moral sensitivity, the kids watched animations of characters that bumped one another, either by accident or not, and were asked to comment on what they saw and determine the level of punishment required if any.
In addition to the testing, the parents of the children filled out questionnaires detailing their religious practices and beliefs, with the families being categorised into three groups: Christian, Muslim, or non-religious. Other religious groups were also present, but not in statistically significant proportions for the purposes of the study.
What the researchers found is that the religious children were significantly less likely to share their stickers than the kids from non-religious backgrounds. This non-altruistic behaviour was also more pronounced in children who had been exposed to religion for a longer time, although all the kids in the study in general showed more inclination to share as they grew older.
The religious kids were also more likely to favour stronger punishments for the anti-social behaviour and interpersonal harm they witnessed in the animations – and were harsher in their judgment than non-religious children when it came to assessing the meanness of characters onscreen bumping into one another.
“Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism,” said Decety. “They challenge the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behaviour, and call into question whether religion is vital for moral development – suggesting the secularisation of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness. In fact, it does just the opposite.”
The findings, which are published in Current Biology, may make people in some quarters reconsider some assumptions about the necessarily positive effects of religion on a person’s moral development.
“This view is unfortunately so deeply embedded that individuals who are not religious can be considered morally suspect,” said Decety. “In the United States, for instance, non-religious individuals have little chance to be elected to a high political office, and those who identify as agnostic and atheist are considered to be less trustworthy and more likely to be amoral or even immoral.”
You say I'm narrow minded, yet I'm the only one here asking open minded questions. I've even been very careful with my words not to take too strong of a stance for either side. I'm just trying to get people to respond before continuing to form my own opinion. The problem is, instead of being open minded, I get narrow minded answers like "BLARGH YOU HATE DEH RELIGOUS PEOPEL " and the ball huggers that follow those posts.
If you took the time to consider what's being said, with an open mind, you might have been able to see what I've been getting at here.
If there was a group of 30,000 atheist Germans around the world committing terrorist attacks against anyone who wasn't German would draw the exact same conclusions. Hating anyone because they're not like you fucking sucks. It doesn't matter if the tool you use is Islam or Christianity or any other religion. It doesn't matter if it's because of nationality or socio-economic status. This type of shit needs to stop for humanity to progress.
But yeah, continue to harp about how much I hate religion. Let's just keep going around in circles about that.
Your question is pointless, and perhaps open-ended at best, not to mention your track record of trashing religions in various threads. The question you posed leads nowhere on an online forum like this as you could tell with bunch of moronic replies whenever the topic of religion is involved.
"Hating anyone because they're not like you fucking sucks."
Exactly, you said it right there, and it ends there. Whatever you want to discuss leads nowhere. Religions will continue to exist. They will bring hope to many but will lead certain people astray. I don't need to harp about how much you hate religion. You reek of hatred towards religion .
(CNN)French fighter jets bombed a series of ISIS sites in Raqqa, Syria, on Sunday in what officials described as a major bombardment.
The airstrikes came two days after a series of terrorist attacks in Paris. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attacks, which France's President described as "an act of war."
ISIS claims Raqqa as the capital of its so-called caliphate. The targets in Sunday's airstrikes included a command center, a recruitment center, an ammunition storage base and a training camp for the terror group, said Mickael Soria, press adviser for France's defense minister.
Paris attacks: Authorities hunt for a French national
Twelve aircraft, including 10 fighter jets, were involved in the airstrikes, Soria said. Twenty bombs were dropped, he said, and all of the targets were destroyed.
A pro-ISIS news agency claimed the sites had been abandoned before they were hit.
Military analyst: Strikes are 'symbolic'
France has been conducting airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria since September as part of a U.S.-led coalition.
But the timing of Sunday's airstrikes likely was no coincidence, analysts said.
"Clearly, it's a military activity, but it really sends a very strong political message, and it's all for internal consumption within France," said retired Maj. Gen. James "Spider" Marks, a CNN military analyst. "This is very visceral. The types of targets they strike right now really are symbolic. From the French perspective, something has to be done."
But it's not just difficult to know what's going on inside the ISIS stronghold, said Janine di Giovanni, Newsweek's Middle East editor. It's also hard, she said, to gauge the best strategy for fighting back.
"I think that it's very complicated, launching airstrikes like this as a retribution, but also as a way of wiping out ISIS," she said. "Because, the other thing is, that you can't wipe out an ideology. You might be able to suppress them militarily, or you might be able to cut off some of their lines, but you can't suppress the key message they're spreading."
What impact did airstrikes have?
It's hard to know what's happening on the ground inside Raqqa. Since ISIS took over, the city has become increasingly isolated -- with an activist group known as Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently providing outsiders with a harrowing glimpse of the city's transformation.
On Sunday, the activist collective said that the city appeared to be bracing for an attack even before the French airstrikes began.
ISIS fighters in Raqqa had expected retaliatory airstrikes and evacuated key facilities, including their headquarters, operation and security buildings, a member of Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently said.
Streets were empty, the activists said, markets were less crowded than usual and sheikhs in mosques said they expected the city to be struck.
The airstrikes hit several key ISIS facilities, including the city's stadium, activists said, used by ISIS as both its headquarters and a jail. It was not immediately clear what the damage was. So far, according to Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, there have been no reports of civilian casualties.
The pro-ISIS news agency Amaaq also said the sites hit by airstrikes had been abandoned. CNN has not independently confirmed the groups' reports.
ISIS in Raqqa was previously the target of retaliatory airstrikes in February. Two days after news emerged that the group had burned a captive Jordanian pilot to death, the Middle Eastern nation hit back. At the time, ISIS posted photos of the destruction from the Jordanian airstrikes and the activist Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 10 militants were killed.
Also, saw this picture on Reddit: A picture inside one of the hospitals in Paris.
Crazy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme S
More than half of the problem is stupidity, not malice.
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,645
Thanked 2,191 Times in 1,131 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68style
^
Dude how many people enter Canada every single day from land, sea and air? How do we guarantee all those people don't have ill intent (with far less checking and random inspection I might add)?
Don't be stupid.
What who are screen properly, ppl who have a legal background back in their home country that can be track be. Ever wonder why is so difficult for certain countries to apply Visa to Canada? Is for security.
We can lower our risk by limiting the number of people from high risk country in and do a more through security check. Blindly accepting 25k refugee when you can't even screen legitimate people who apply to immigrant to Canada legally is just stupid.
All the nearby countries isn't accepting any refugee is there something they know that we aren't aware? Why is all the European countries tighting their policy on refugee? Is it possible they too can't tell if the refugee actually trying to start a better life or they are terrorist simply trying to cause chaos. Why should we put our citizen at risk when we fully know the 25k refugee coming in won't be properly screen for security, or health? When we have the chance now to stop this from happening.
Last edited by Mr.HappySilp; 11-15-2015 at 05:03 PM.
Bombings, killings, etc. all over the middle east yet nobody gives a rats ass. Some hostage take over gets put on mainstream media and everyone finds it interesting to discuss about. Needless to say, RIP to those in Paris.
As others have posted, it's because many of us have been to Paris and can relate to it easier.
Also, most of us wake up everyday knowing that there's a small chance we might die in a car accident, get hit crossing the street etc. We can accept that. We can't accept thinking that we might get bombed going to see a concert or eating at our favorite restaurants. And we certainly don't want it to be the norm like in other countries. Hence that's why people are discussing it.
What who are screen properly, ppl who have a legal background back in their home country that can be track be. Ever wonder why is so difficult for certain countries to apply Visa to Canada? Is for security.
We can lower our risk by limiting the number of people from high risk country in and do a more through security check. Blindly accepting 25k refugee when you can't even screen legitimate people who apply to immigrant to Canada legally is just stupid.
All the nearby countries isn't accepting any refugee is there something they know that we aren't aware? Why is all the European countries tighting their policy on refugee? Is it possible they too can't tell if the refugee actually trying to start a better life or they are terrorist simply trying to cause chaos. Why should we put our citizen at risk when we fully know the 25k refugee coming in won't be properly screen for security, or health? When we have the chance now to stop this from happening.
the whole letting 25k people in over 6 weeks also makes an absolute sham out of the people who are legitimately trying to immigrate to this country.
There was a story not too long ago of a man who owned a shwarma place, might have been downtown, cant remember. Anyways, the guy has moved here, established a successful business, built up roots, and has been trying for the last 2 years to bring at least portions of his family over to Canada.
So a guy, who has legally migrated to Canada, worked his ASS off to make something of himself, and has taken all the proper avenues in order to bring his family over here has been in limbo for 2 years to bring a wife and young children over to Canada
Yet.. we are willing to bring people, who in a lot of cases have absolutely no legitimate background records, coming from war torn areas known to willingly harbor 'extremists' and essentially open the gates for them, providing housing, social assistance, health care, etc. etc.
in SIX WEEKS NO LESS?
Jesus.. some people here sure are short sighted in their views.. Bleeding hearts claiming racism and bigotry over a call to judgement on having arguably the highest risk refugee's ever seen by the world basically skip all proper forms of emigration and be awarded a passport on arrival?
Yes, Canada is a melting pot of cultures and peoples, and thats whats makes it so great. But as i said on the last page, this scenario is unlike one there has ever been.
I know plenty of immigrants, and I myself am basically a 3rd generation Canadian on my fathers side. However, of all the immigrants i know, or am a part of. None have came to Canada this way. Not one person who ever came here from elsewhere and made something of themselves who i know was given a free pass. They scraped tooth and nail to become a Canadian citizen, worked harder than most people will ever know, and are PROUD of what they did and what they have become.
PROUD to be a Canadian.
Hand out free passes like it's a playland ride and healthcare to some guy who got on a boat to Europe because they knew hand-outs awaited them there? fuckk...
Scary times.
__________________
Dank memes cant melt steel beams
There's a difference between refugees and regular immigrants: we let refugees in on an expedited basis because we have reason to believe that they would face persecution or murder in their home countries. When it comes to refugees, it's a matter of life or death. The international community recognized long ago that refugees are particular cases that require special attention. Canada lets in far more immigrants under the regular streams than it does under the refugee stream. Many of the young men who have walked across Europe are looking for a better life, but if they had remained in Syria, they would have likely faced two choices - death, or joining ISIS. What would you prefer?
HappySlip:
The reason why Europe is "closing their borders" is because most European countries have integration issues rooted in historical xenophobia. Most immigrants live in ghettos and are not fully participating members of European societies (unless they're athletes). Canada does a far better job of integrating immigrants. Sure there are ethnic enclaves here, but most immigrants have a reasonable chance of success if they work hard and decide to become active in the wider community.
I think Mr.Trudeau is going to have a wake up call real soon if he keeps going with the 25,000 refugee policy. Clearly being a "peoples PM" is clouding his judgement. #prayforcanada
If French intel can't screen these folk, I highly doubt CSIS can do any better.
__________________
Sometimes we tend to be in despair when the person we love leaves us, but the truth is, it's not our loss, but theirs, for they left the only person who couldn't give up on them.
Make the effort and take the risk..
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Also, saw this picture on Reddit: A picture inside one of the hospitals in Paris.
Crazy.
One thing I always wonder, in events like this, who pay the medical bill?
I can't imagine they billing the victims afterwards, but someone has to pay for all that and I'm sure all those emergency trauma treatments aren't cheap.
One thing that has never added up for me is what exactly is ISIS? Or the so-called group of this Islamic state extremists?
I've watched a few documentaries, read lots on the subject and the exact number or identity of the group is always so shrouded I do not know what to think.
Earlier estimates had "ISIS" pegged at approx 30-100,000 individuals. More recent numbers seem to be closer to 300,000.
While most news outlets will take a biased stance on the subject the majority of them seem to always describe Isis as this singular entity. They talk about them like they are this churning machine "Isis is making billions off oil sales" "Isis is funding their recruitment and armourment" "Isis has resources and liquidity"
Some of the best run organizations in the world, operating in the most ideal situations possible, have trouble with the logistics and planning of the movement and delivery of a singular product. Yet I'm suppose to buy into the fact that some guys on humvees have the business of terrorism down to a well oiled machine? Hmm.. I don't know..
I'd say that it's fairly clear the individuals or groups involved in the terror attacks are small cells of the larger body acting almost strictly within themselves. They do not have "orders" from the higher ups, they have not received directives from other parties. They form plans and act on their own accord. Which in a lot of ways is what makes this whole thing that much scarier. There are not transmissions to intercept. There are not people coming from far away who are flagged prior.
So, if the majority of attacks are done by these cells, and there are approx 300,000 members basically running free shot over Syria etc and "forcing" these people to leave, this isn't somthing that can be handled via military force?
Obviously the general public will never be let into the intimate details, however just on the surface I beleive there is far more out there than the public has any idea.
A big thing for me is Russia's involvement. Yes, they seemingly have personal interests in the regions and the groups involved, however as has been well documented, over the past few months Russia has been bombing the fuck out of the region. Cruise missiles from sea like the one that fell into Iran are bombarding the hot areas.
U.S. Media seems to bring it up with a negative spin, however Obama and others seem to stay tight lipped, almost as to say, go ahead, keep doing it so we don't have to get our hands dirty and see where it takes us.
It's all very confusing and in the dark to me, and I've read and learned quite a bit on it and almost everything to do with it is an unknown
__________________
Dank memes cant melt steel beams
One thing I always wonder, in events like this, who pay the medical bill?
I can't imagine they billing the victims afterwards, but someone has to pay for all that and I'm sure all those emergency trauma treatments aren't cheap.
They have government funded healthcare like Canada.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.