Breaking: At least 1 man dead after stabbing rampage in Dundalk

Grayson wrote: »

De Valera I think.

It's a bit of an exaggeration to suggest I'd rewrite the constitution (Although i wouldn't mind having a crack at the 8th )

In the UK a sikh is exempt from wearing a motorcycle helmet. That's not a bad law. It doesn't affect the rest of us in any way.

It really is. Safety legislation should apply to everyone equally.
The broader picture is that you're accommodating one group while saying no to another, which creates tension and resentment.

splinter65 wrote: »

People fleeing bad places need to be given the opportunity to flee to a place that is conducive to their mindset, or accept that the place they are fleeing to has a different attitude to freedoms then the place they are fleeing from.
What is so wrong with giving asylum seekers the information that they need BEFORE they waste their time, so they can make an informed desicion about where they want to go?
You do agree that a host country shouldn’t have to change its accepted mores to accommodate the sensibilities of visitors?

....but according to you lot they shouldn't pick where they go.....

You'd want to be a lot more specific with the last bit.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Grayson you are attempting to vilify a point that is simple, important, and valid (compatibility).

It's not evil, it's not racist, it's pragmatic.
Some cultures are very compatible, and chances of successful integration are good for refugees from such cultures, and thus good outcome for both the host country and the refugees.

Then possibly other refugees might have a much harder time adapting to their new home, because it is in such contrast to their original culture, with a more problematic outcome for both host and newcomer.

I can see how it is so easy to take the high moral ground and vilify the compatibility issue, but it does not invalidate it for me.

Stating that compatibility is a not a valid argument is unrealistic imo.

Now, discussing what is or is not compatible with our culture, or how adaptable and flexible we think newcomers or hosts may be is more to the point, and you hint at it in your edit.

The bit above the edit is just a cheap shot (and it shows a lack of deeper thought on the issue imo), and the subsequent quote from Professor M about "juvenile drivel" again is not really evident of a will to make it work, it's just a quick way to be on what you guys think is the right side of the argument.

There seems to be a persistent inference in this talk of 'incompatibility of cultures' that people from cultural backgrounds all think the same way. There are 1.3 billion Muslims on the planet -- they are not all hooked up to some Muslim Mainframe where they are all programmed to think and act in the exact same way and to react to Western norms in the same way. I keep having to reiterate that Muslims living in Europe do so peacefully and law abidingly -- the proportion of them engaged in terrorism is microscopic while the ones who partake in general crime has more to do with socio-economic factors than by virtue of what religion they are. The Muslim population has continued to grow in Europe and there has been no correlating slide in Europe's freedoms and intellectual progress.

You say it is not racist or evil to say that one person's cultural background simply is not compatible with yours. Fair enough. But in times like this we have to look back at any point in history where people decided that people of one 'culture' should just be seen as undesirable as a collective. The Jews in Europe, the African Americans, Apartheid etc etc. The point is, you may feel that an exercise of generalising people by their cultural background is 'pragmatic' -- but historic precedent has shown us time and time again that it simply never works out well.

For Muslims living here currently in Ireland, if you think they are so incompatible with us, then you should be consistent in your views, seek them out, and say it to their faces. Tell them directly that they just don't belong with us. If that would make you uncomfortable, then think about why that is. I'm not going to call you a racist at all -- but you fail to see that the idea you are espousing, however well-meaning you think it is, is the first classic step towards racism/sectarianism etc : generalise based on race/religion and just decide that an entire strata of people should just be viewed as being 'incompatible' with us.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I'm generally of the same point of view as you, Grayson, but that's a ridiculous law. A turban is no replacement for a helmet. Imagine "Catholics are exempt from wearing seatbelts."

As far as I'm aware sikh's are also exempt from wearing helmets if they're in the army or police force. Sure it makes sense for them to wear a helmet but they are aware that they could get shot in the head.

Allowing a sikh to not wear a helmet is a minor concession. It doesn't hurt anyone (except maybe the sikh in the event of a crash)

How about this, catholics are exempt from workplace rules regarding ash on their face, on Ash Wednesday. Unless it affects their job. In that way a catholic can't be fired for having ash on their foreheads. Exceptions would involve say surgeons who have to clean up before surgery. Is that too much of a concession?

All of these things are little concessions. A catholic in work with ash on their forehead, a muslim wearing a scarf or a sikh wearing a turban are really tiny details. None of them are going to destroy our society anymore than gay marriage is going to.

When people want to impose religious rules on others it's different. One is allowing people freedom to practice their religion, the other is someone seeking to impose their religious rules on others. I'm bitterly opposed to those groups. Doesn't matter if it's muslims or the Iona institute.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Grayson you are attempting to vilify a point that is simple, important, and valid (compatibility).

It's not evil, it's not racist, it's pragmatic.
Some cultures are very compatible, and chances of successful integration are good for refugees from such cultures, and thus good outcome for both the host country and the refugees.

Then possibly other refugees might have a much harder time adapting to their new home, because it is in such contrast to their original culture, with a more problematic outcome for both host and newcomer.

I can see how it is so easy to take the high moral ground and vilify the compatibility issue, but it does not invalidate it for me.

Stating that compatibility is a not a valid argument is unrealistic imo.

Now, discussing what is or is not compatible with our culture, or how adaptable and flexible we think newcomers or hosts may be is more to the point, and you hint at it in your edit.

The bit above the edit is just a cheap shot (and it shows a lack of deeper thought on the issue imo), and the subsequent quote from Professor M about "juvenile drivel" again is not really evident of a will to make it work, it's just a quick way to be on what you guys think is the right side of the argument.

Completely agree with you about the compatibility.

I was in my local Forest Park one day. In we walk and see about 50 Muslim people sitting by the playground. Great, I'm open minded enough but as I played with my children, I could see how segregated the group were.

Women in one burkas in one huddle, men 10 metres away in another huddle and children playing happily another 10 metres away.

Absolutely no chat or interaction or movement or even looking at each other between the 3 groups. Was as odd as hell.

Couldn't tell you where they originated from but for flip sake, if you can't even integrate and interact with everyone within your own culture, there isn't much chance you're going to integrate and assimilate into a wider community with different views.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

There seems to be a persistent inference in this talk of 'incompatibility of cultures' that people from cultural backgrounds all think the same way. There are 1.3 billion Muslims on the planet -- they are not all hooked up to some Muslim Mainframe where they are all programmed to think and act in the exact same way and to react to Western norms in the same way. I keep having to reiterate that Muslims living in Europe do so peacefully and law abidingly -- the proportion of them engaged in terrorism is microscopic while the ones who partake in general crime has more to do with socio-economic factors than by virtue of what religion they are. The Muslim population has continued to grow in Europe and there has been no correlating slide in Europe's freedoms and intellectual progress.

You say it is not racist or evil to say that one person's cultural background simply is not compatible with yours. Fair enough. But in times like this we have to look back at any point in history where people decided that people of one 'culture' should just be seen as undesirable as a collective. The Jews in Europe, the African Americans, Apartheid etc etc. The point is, you may feel that an exercise of generalising people by their cultural background is 'pragmatic' -- but historic precedent has shown us time and time again that it simply never works out well.

For Muslims living here currently in Ireland, if you think they are so incompatible with us, then you should be consistent in your views, seek them out, and say it to their faces. Tell them directly that they just don't belong with us. If that would make you uncomfortable, then think about why that is. I'm not going to call you a racist at all -- but you fail to see that the idea you are espousing, however well-meaning you think it is, is the first classic step towards racism/sectarianism etc : generalise based on race/religion and just decide that an entire strata of people should just be viewed as being 'incompatible' with us.

you only have to look up the road to see 2 groups that are "incompatible". are you saying incompatibility cant happen?

Is gender segregation like below acceptable or down to a clash of cultures?

onetimecypher wrote: »

Can someone please tell me the International Aviation Code for Dundalk International Airport, and please tell me the schedule for flights from Egypt, Somalia, Afghanistan, Nigeria, any West African states, Syria, Iran, Iraq et al

I’m sure if you look in the Aviation forum they might know.
This is a thread about someone being stabbed to death in Dundalk.

silverharp wrote: »

you only have to look up the road to see 2 groups that are "incompatible". are you saying incompatibility cant happen?

Is gender segregation like below acceptable or down to a clash of cultures?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tSYGfEg1IY

I really don't get your example about the North. You're saying that Catholics and Protestants in the North are incompatible despite the fact that they work, mingle and live alongside eachother overwhelmingly in perfect harmony. Do you know why that is --- because we (I am from the North) ignored those who told us to look only at the differences and learned to find the similarities. We ignored those who told us that Protestants were all religious fundamentalist whack jobs with a superior race vibe, and we ignored those who told us that Catholics are all idiotic troublemakers whose true loyalty is to the Pope and will do whatever their Imperial overlord in Rome commands.

We got over the stereotypes. How different things might have been if we had just done that from the start.

Also I don't really get the point of the video in the context of this argument. I have never defended the Islamic religion -- I think it's a pack of authoritarian oppressive nonsense, much like its cousin Christianity. Unlike you though, I don't assume that every single Muslim behaves in the exact same way as the people in that video. How many YouTube videos are there of 'Muslim people going about their daily lives and not doing any harm to anybody or telling anyone what to do'? None I guess --- it doesn't make great viewing, and it doesn't suit the agenda.

By the way, if an Irish woman is raped and becomes pregnant from that -- I think we can all agree that this is an awful and torturous experience. Tell me then, what does our enlightened and female-respecting law say when the rape victim says they do not wish to be subjected to the torment of being forced to bear the offspring of their rapist? But hey -- the burka is a much greater evil right?

Odhinn wrote: »

....yet you're on about immigration from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Gas, isn't it.

You asked me to be more specific about our mores and I answered you.
Do you want to reply to that or ....?

Grayson wrote: »

How about this, catholics are exempt from workplace rules regarding ash on their face, on Ash Wednesday. Unless it affects their job. In that way a catholic can't be fired for having ash on their foreheads. Exceptions would involve say surgeons who have to clean up before surgery. Is that too much of a concession?

.

Except there is no law stating that you are not allowed to wear ash on their face in the workplace. And what about ashy headed catholics that work in kitchens? Would they get an exception? Food contamination is a thing. Or those that work in cleanroom environments? Is that an exception under law?

I'm all about live and let live, but laws should cover everyone. If that's the case, I want exemption from speeding related offenses, because it's in my blood to go fast.

Odhinn wrote: »

"they don't" but you do?

Well seeing as you mentioned it I thought I'd ask. It seems to be some general moan about "dem muslims".

Where did I moan about “dem Muslims”?
You alleged that the attacker’s is not from Pakistan or Afghanistan .
Nobody knows where he’s from, except you.

splinter65 wrote: »

Where did I moan about “dem Muslims”?

Well you dragged Pakistan and Afghanistan into it, gave out about their attitude to women and gays, and you mentioned "mainly muslim countries" before.