Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by David Cooper » August 15th, 2018, 3:33 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 15th, 2018, 9:11 am
You can imagine the questionnaire:
Q: Are you or any of your family hell bent on world domination?
yes/no.
Q: Are you committed to the overthrown of Western freedom?
yes/no
Q; Do you think Mohammed exhorts all Muslims to slay infidels where ever they are?
yes/no

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be refused entry in to the USA.
That's inadequate, and it's also biased against Muslims. I'd prefer something universal and robust which can be applied by all countries to protect them against infiltration by all haters:-

Q1: Are you in possession of any hate materials? [Entry immediately refused if so.]

Q2: Do you condemn all the hate speech in the manifestos and holy texts of ideologies/religions which has been banned in this country? [Entry immediately refused if not.]

Q3: Do you understand that if you are subsequently found to possess or propagate any such banned hate you will permanently lose your right to vote and stand for political office, you may lose the freedom to travel unsupervised outside of your home and to associate with other people who have committed the same offence, and that you may also be deported?

A similar questionnaire would be needed for existing residents of the country after the hate has been outlawed:-

Q1: Are you in possession of any hate materials? [If so, you permanently lose your right to vote and stand for political office, you may lose the freedom to travel unsupervised outside of your home and to associate with other people who have committed the same offence, and you may also be deported if your place of origin is abroad.]

Q2: Do you condemn all the hate speech in the manifestos/holy texts of the ideologies/religions which has been banned in this country? [If not, you permanently lose your right to vote and stand for political office, you may lose the freedom to travel unsupervised outside of your home and to associate with other people who have committed the same offence, and you may also be deported if your place of origin is abroad.]

Q3: Do you understand that if you possess or propagate any such banned hate you will permanently lose your right to vote and stand for political office, you may lose the freedom to travel unsupervised outside of your home and to associate with other people who have committed the same offence, and you may also be deported if your place of origin is abroad?

That is how this hate should be stamped out and the world gradually made safe, one country at a time. New, safe versions of all holy texts and manifestos would be made available and there would be no problem with possessing and propagating them. The versions with hate could still be accessed by academics under licence at secure locations if they have been evaluated as sufficiently rational, peaceful individuals, although they would have to accept that they may be kept under close surveillance for the rest of their lives if there is any cause for suspicion about their motives or susceptibility. Other curious people could potentially be allowed to see examples of holy and ideological hate in a form that makes it impossible to tell which religion or ideology it comes from to help them decide whether they want to become the kind of person who wastes their life studying it academically, but again they would have to accept that they may be kept under close surveillance for the rest of their lives if there is any cause for suspicion about their motives or susceptibility. Different categories of hate would also be treated differently in terms of ease of access, higher protection measures being put in place for the more dangerous kinds (such as direct commands to kill), but any text that sets any kind of precedent for killing people who don't deserve to be killed will still be classed as banned hate (meaning that access to it is tightly controlled) - this will include a lot of the stuff that Dachshund is defending. The masses will be allowed to read modified versions where all such precedents are removed through careful rewording to make it clear that God does not call for or allow any abuses to be carried out in any circumstances.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 15th, 2018, 4:41 pm

David Cooper wrote:
August 15th, 2018, 3:33 pm

That's inadequate, and it's also biased against Muslims. I'd prefer something universal and robust which can be applied by all countries to protect them against infiltration by all haters:-

Q1: Are you in possession of any hate materials? [Entry immediately refused if so.]..
.
FFS.
DO you think that would trap ANY terrorists?
DO you understand the meaning of humour?

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 15th, 2018, 4:43 pm

PS.
Thanks Dachshund ... or is it David Cooper now?

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by David Cooper » August 16th, 2018, 6:23 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 15th, 2018, 4:41 pm
Q1: Are you in possession of any hate materials? [Entry immediately refused if so.]..
.
FFS.
DO you think that would trap ANY terrorists?[/quote]

I doubt it - it would just trap a few of the less harmful bigots who haven't had the wit to dispose of them before travelling. The other questions do provide a hint of a workable system though. The stupid masses who can be "misled" by the literal meaning of holy texts should not be exposed to those texts directly, but should only see modified versions which remove or rewrite the parts that do the damage. Academics and religious leaders would be able to view the originals under licence, and they would be banned from transmitting the banned parts to anyone who lacks a licence. This would make it much harder for the holy hate to radicalise people in the general population, and anyone found to be in possession of it would be able to lead to imprisonment of them and whoever made it available to them - there would be no need to wait until they start building bombs..
DO you understand the meaning of humour?
Yes, but your humour presented a good opportunity to set out the beginnings of a system that needs to be built.

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by David Cooper » August 16th, 2018, 6:24 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 15th, 2018, 4:43 pm
PS.
Thanks Dachshund ... or is it David Cooper now?
Why would you want to ask that? I don't defend Christian hate (or any other sources of primary hate).

Steve3007
Posts: 5572
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Steve3007 » August 17th, 2018, 5:40 am

I've got a Frankie Boyle DVD. Does that count as hate material?

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 17th, 2018, 6:36 am

David Cooper wrote:
August 16th, 2018, 6:23 pm
Yes, but your humour presented a good opportunity to set out the beginnings of a system that needs to be built.
Which would not trap anyone, so therefore useless.

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by David Cooper » August 17th, 2018, 2:58 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
August 17th, 2018, 5:40 am
I've got a Frankie Boyle DVD. Does that count as hate material?
That depends on the content (which I certainly haven't seen). In every case you have to look at the potential of material to generate serious immoral actions. Comedy is less likely than a holy text or political manifesto to be taken as a serious incitement to do something extreme, but it can still happen. If it's merely offensive to some people, that's another issue. Someone training a dog to do a Nazi salute whenever he says "gas the Jews" can be interpreted as comedy or hate, but which of those it actually is depends on the individual producing that kind of "humour", and you have to judge that by looking at the other output of that individual to determine whether he's a hater or not. A person who did that recently was found guilty of a crime even though it is likely that he was actually just trying to be funny, and if there's no evidence that he has any animosity towards Jews, then it was an unfair judgement. Whether or not his humour/hate should be banned is a separate matter, and it would depend on the impact of it on the public. If it led to some racists feeling a greater desire to gas Jews or abuse them in any other way, then it should be banned, or at least restricted so that racists aren't exposed to it. Clearly we have a measurement problem if we want to determine the risks of any piece of humour/hate, but this will be solved by AGI within a decade.

David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by David Cooper » August 17th, 2018, 3:00 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 17th, 2018, 6:36 am
Which would not trap anyone, so therefore useless.
It's not useless at all - it would strongly discourage people from possessing and propagating hate, thereby leading to a safer and more peaceful world. Not do go down this route would be crazy.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 17th, 2018, 3:09 pm

David Cooper wrote:
August 17th, 2018, 3:00 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 17th, 2018, 6:36 am
Which would not trap anyone, so therefore useless.
It's not useless at all - it would strongly discourage people from possessing and propagating hate, thereby leading to a safer and more peaceful world. Not do go down this route would be crazy.
Don't be absurd.

Dachshund
Posts: 500
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: The Problem with Christianity

Post by Dachshund » August 18th, 2018, 1:22 am

Greta wrote:
August 14th, 2018, 2:35 am
Dachshund, given that you have shown yourself to be a superstitious obsessive neo-fascist, one would expect that possessing a brain the size of a squirrel's would be aspirational for you! Your brain would be more akin to that of a stegosaurus, at best. Your values appear to be of that vintage anyway.

With regard to your referring to me in disparaging terms as "superstitious", I presume this little insult has been posted because I have dared to openly defend the Christian religion ( here in the heart of secular humanist, politically correct, liberal- progressive, "Cloud Cuckoo" land), and in your opinion my understanding that Jesus Christ ( the "Logos") was divine is nothing but primitive, unenlightened superstition. That is, my stance, (in your arrogant, "know all" opinion), is incontrovertibly inferior, in comparison to the to myopic "eye- wash" pedalled by secular, rationalistic, empiricist, atheists like your big hero Richard Dawkins ( i.e; Richard DORK-ins).

Well, I put it to you that you and Dawkins and Co are a confederacy of fools, and that this is not merely my opinion; - It is also the considered opinion of Jordan Peterson, who is, BTW, a Christian and ,as it happens, possesses an IQ of around 160 ( i.e. an intelligence that totally eclipses that which is generated by your own tiny "squirrel brain" even when it is functioning "flat out" at its absolute maximum efficiency ). Peterson's demolition of the position occupied by Dawkins and Sam Harris other so-called "New Atheists", (like the late Christopher Hitchins), is a beautiful thing to witness, and if you would like,"Greta - Goose", I would be more than happy to provide a precis of his case for you, in clear, simple, jargon-free English in an appropriate sub-forum, should you be interested in getting up to speed with the way that clever people are now beginning to think as a new post-secular, (Christian) era dawns in West.

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7356
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Greta » August 18th, 2018, 3:21 am

Thank you for confirming your superstitious nature to the forum.

You are fabulous at lashing out. A natural whip. However, your skill with rhetoric reveals superficially impressive prose that does not stand up to scrutiny.

The trouble is that Peterson demolished cartoonish straw man versions of the "New Atheists", and he skilfully vanquished his fictitious foes. By contrast, the literalist fundamentalism that Dawkins and Harris demolished is a genuine issue, unlike Peterson's straw atheists".

The issue is that superstitious people are easily led by charlatans and this stands in the way of sensible policy making. Nobody cares about "sophisticated" or "progressive" theists, or even laid back ones who just try to do the right thing and may or may not go to church on Sundays. Nobody has a problem with them.

Many do, rightly enough, have a problem with divisive retrograde superstitious white power necons - like you. Have you ever contemplated the possibility of being a kind and pleasant person? You know, chillin' out, showing mercy to those more vulnerable, stuff like that?

Steve3007
Posts: 5572
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Steve3007 » August 18th, 2018, 6:54 am

Dachshund wrote:... I would be more than happy to provide a precis of his case for you, in clear, simple, jargon-free English in an appropriate sub-forum, should you be interested in getting up to speed with the way that clever people are now beginning to think as a new post-secular, (Christian) era dawns in West.
I think you should start a new topic and elucidate this argument as clearly as you can. I guess it should be in the Religion section, but doesn't have to be. It's been a while since there's been a good old fashioned theists versus atheists fight around here. There have been some doozies in the past. But recently the discussions in the Religion section have been about slightly more peripheral issues.

Dachshund
Posts: 500
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 18th, 2018, 6:58 am

Greta,

You don't think twice about referring to me as a neocon, and it crystal clear that when ever you do, you are intentionally applying the label as a term of abuse. But the problem is that I really don't think you understand what Neo-conservatism actually is. So I challenge you to define the doctrine of Neo-conservatism in a simple sentence or two; - It is perfectly possible to do this, BTW, so go for it, girl. Tell the forum what Neo-conservatism is IYO. Define the meaning of the term for us. Then we'll take it from there. OK ?

Regards


Dachshund

Dachshund
Posts: 500
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 18th, 2018, 7:02 am

Steve3007 wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 6:54 am
Dachshund wrote:... I would be more than happy to provide a precis of his case for you, in clear, simple, jargon-free English in an appropriate sub-forum, should you be interested in getting up to speed with the way that clever people are now beginning to think as a new post-secular, (Christian) era dawns in West.
I think you should start a new topic and elucidate this argument as clearly as you can. I guess it should be in the Religion section, but doesn't have to be. It's been a while since there's been a good old fashioned theists versus atheists fight around here. There have been some doozies in the past. But recently the discussions in the Religion section have been about slightly more peripheral issues.

OK, I will.
Regards

Dachshund

Post Reply