So, what are the benefits of a multicultural society?

[ioannis76]

@ioannis: You're again mixing in dubitable assumptions and generalisations, for example that muslims in general are prone to crime. How are we supposed to reach a fruitful conclusion when you keep heaping suppositions on top of each other?

Well, crime statistics from many European countries, show them as being overrepresented. It is interesting that none of the people here seem to be able to answer the simple question of why Sweden for example stopped collecting evidence regarding the nationality of perpetrators.
The benefits of a multicultural society are yet to be revealed to me. With the exception of food (I am from Greece, we have excellent food on our own), and "genetics" I haven't seen much in the way of the benefits of "open borders". On the other hand, acts of terrorism.
I believe that you suffer from "white guilt", something that does not apply to me, since far from having slaves from Asia or Africa, my nation was itself attacked by asians (in antiquity) and enslaved to other asians much later. I would advise you, though to get rid of this "white guilt", because some people will use it against you.

[Iskar]

There, you did it again, you lumped people together under a category of your choice and judged them by statistics. We don't do that. We judge people by their own actions, individually, case by case, and if they break the law they face trial for it, regardless of their skin colour, religion, or any statistic on the former. I told you earlier that in this regard (of norms and values) our societies are pretty monocultural as we do not tolerate parallel legal structures or different standards, so for all that concerns domestic affairs and security, the issue is a non-issue.

Now, if you still want to treat people based on statistics, please explain why we do not expel or imprison all men, as they are grossly overrepresented in crime against women.

As for white guilt, I can put your mind at ease. I am far too arrogant to fall prey to such a silly concept of self-humiliation.

Seriously, though, I aim to treat every human being as a human being and not reduce them to one or two characteristics that the latest populist dimwit has dug up to rouse the rabble and get his desired share of money and power. If treating people that happen to be muslims first and foremost as humans instead of ignoring their humanity in favour of creating a convenient bogeyman - if that is already a case of white guilt to you, then we have a lot to talk about.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well, crime statistics from many European countries, show them as being overrepresented.

First they were responsible for most crime, then you claimed rape had increased in Sweden because of them (it hasn't increased at all) now you're saying they're overrepresented? Can you explain your frequent flip flopping on what you believe is going on?

[Cope]

There, you did it again, you lumped people together under a category of your choice and judged them by statistics. We don't do that.

Unfortunately Iskar, Western civilization does do that despite it being unethical.

We judge people by their own actions, individually, case by case, and if they break the law they face trial for it, regardless of their skin colour, religion, or any statistic on the former.

In a purely juridical context, theoretically, yes. In practice, and as you know, skin colour and gender are often cited as influencing the outcome of legal proceedings from the first interaction with law enforcement to conviction.

I told you earlier that in this regard (of norms and values) our societies are pretty monocultural as we do not tolerate parallel legal structures or different standards, so for all that concerns domestic affairs and security, the issue is a non-issue.

This is debatable. It is certainly the case that in Western societies, national (or European) law is the final arbiter of justice, and yet it is undeniable that our law allows for parallel pseudo-legal structures to exist.

[Iskar]

I thought we were arguing normative questions, not descriptive sociology? It is unquestionable that humans are influenced by such things in their actions, but our legal principles still hold us to the standard to try and judge people regardless of statistics only by their own actions. To which extent the people involved are able to override their subconscious impulses against "the other" is a different question.
If you were representing the prosecution in court, do you think any judge would follow your reasoning if you said "This person is a muslim, muslims are statistically prone to crime, hence we should convict him."?

[ioannis76]

There, you did it again, you lumped people together under a category of your choice and judged them by statistics. We don't do that. We judge people by their own actions, individually, case by case, and if they break the law they face trial for it, regardless of their skin colour, religion, or any statistic on the former. I told you earlier that in this regard (of norms and values) our societies are pretty monocultural as we do not tolerate parallel legal structures or different standards, so for all that concerns domestic affairs and security, the issue is a non-issue.

Now, if you still want to treat people based on statistics, please explain why we do not expel or imprison all men, as they are grossly overrepresented in crime against women.

As for white guilt, I can put your mind at ease. I am far too arrogant to fall prey to such a silly concept of self-humiliation.

Seriously, though, I aim to treat every human being as a human being and not reduce them to one or two characteristics that the latest populist dimwit has dug up to rouse the rabble and get his desired share of money and power. If treating people that happen to be muslims first and foremost as humans instead of ignoring their humanity in favour of creating a convenient bogeyman - if that is already a case of white guilt to you, then we have a lot to talk about.

There, you did it again, you lumped people together under a category of your choice and judged them by statistics. We don't do that.

First of all, who is we? I think that this bit really needs to be clarified, because in this thread you are saying that statistics don't matter, whereas in another thread people who appear to be of the same or similar ideology as you are, cling to statistics for dear life. I really think your side needs to make up their minds.

Secondly, lumping people together under categories and judging them accordingly (by statistics or prejudice), is something we all do. Here is an example: Imagine that you are driving your car in a remote area, late at night. You see a large man, unshaved and not very well dressed, trying to hitch a ride with you. You drive your car on the same road, late at night, and you see a young girl of 20, well dressed trying to hitch a ride with you. I am willing to bet that you would offer the girl a ride, and would not stop for the large, weird looking guy. Because somewhere in your mind, that statistic of late night male hitch hikers and crime clicked. So please, spare me the "oh, I am so morally superior, I don't judge people based on statistics" story.

We judge people by their own actions, individually, case by case, and if they break the law they face trial for it, regardless of their skin colour, religion, or any statistic on the former.

I told you before, but you must have missed it. Each country's police has the capability to handle X amount of crime, committed by X amount of people. If this amount of crime and the number of people committing it increases, the capabilities of the police reach their breaking point. The target of ANTIFA, anarchists and similar groups (and I believe, secretly leftists, as well) is to reach this critical mass of individuals so they can have their revolution or whatever else they think they are going to achieve in their pot-distorted minds.

Now, if you still want to treat people based on statistics, please explain why we do not expel or imprison all men, as they are grossly overrepresented in crime against women.

Because men in society serve a vital role. if we did what you say, society would not be able to function (not to mention continue to exist, because people would not reproduce). What is the vital role in society for migrants who rely on welfare? And perhaps you did not see that illegal entry to a country is exactly that, ILLEGAL. People who cross the borders ILLEGALLY are CRIMINALS and therefore must be arrested and persecuted if the law of the land applies.

And I reiterate another position which I stated earlied, and which you probably missed: Every time you let in Europe a man of fighting age from Syria, you assist ISIS. Because we are either talking about an ISIS (or similar terrorist faction such as the "moderate" head choppers) criminal, trying to flee from his well deserved punishment, OR we are talking about an SAA defector (which removes combat personnel from the SAA). How morally superior does one feel supporting terrorism?

So to sum up, you seem to base some moral superiority on "not judging according to statistics, etc" whereas everyone does that (and I am willing to bet, even you). Secondly, you seem to consider the capabilities of the police and the resources it has as somehow magically limitless, able to deal with belligerence regardless of the number of people who will commit it. Third, you speak of humanism and all that, but you don't seem too concerned for the victims of crime and terrorism that the policy of "open borders" has created. Why? White lives don't matter?

[Iskar]

By "we" I mean, perhaps a bit too generously, those who support the values and norms lying at the basis of most "Western" societies, i.e. human rights, principles of law, democracy, etc.

One should differentiate the context where statistics are being employed:
On the one hand we have a juridical/normative context that concerns interactions of individuals with the authorities: Here each case must be assessed individually regardless of statistics on one or the other group an individual may be ascribed to.
On the other hand we have a sociological/descriptive context where we use group denominations and statistical data to attain knowledge of, roughly speaking, "what is going on". This knowledge may then be used to motivate legislation, with the precaution that legislation itself must again follow the normative approach above and may not discriminate people for carrying a certain characteristic.

Therefore one can (and should) cling to reliable statistics when arguing descriptive issues while firmly rejecting their instrumentalisation for normative ones.

My alleged moral superority comes only from the fact that I uphold standards of law and human rights that you seem hellbent on ignoring. It is less an arrogant act on my part than failure to conform to our Western values on your part.

Your example with the unwashed guy and the young girl both asking for a lift is quite beside the point for several reasons:
1) I myself deciding whether or not to take someone into my car is not a situation where I act in a juridical/normative manner as a state representative, but as a private person following my personal interests.
2) If I decide whom to give a lift based on the two persons' appearances I am not judging them by statistics, I am judging them by their very personal appearance, which is quite in line with what I wrote above.

As for the fear of a breakdown of public order you mentioned, one can simply hire more policemen or improve the efficiency of the police force by better equipment and coordination, and if all else fails take harsher measures (within the constitution's bounds) such as curfews, temporary closure of borders, etc. - all without summarily banning an entire religious denomination or flat out ignoring the human right to asylum.

Now, if you still want to treat people based on statistics, please explain why we do not expel or imprison all men, as they are grossly overrepresented in crime against women.

Because men in society serve a vital role.

Well, certainly not all men. I am sure we can select a few "drones" to serve the reproductive needs of the population and expel the rest. After all, you said yourself we should not show any leniency when we can save but one woman or child from being molested.

PS:

people who appear to be of the same or similar ideology as you are

I don't know whether we would mean the same people with that or to which extent you have divined my "ideology". To spare you the guessing: I am a Catholic centrist (in European terms), conservative leaning in matters of security and foreign policy, social-democrat leaning in some social/welfare issues based on Catholic Social Teaching and liberal(ist) in terms of judiciary policy and constitutional matters. (Mind you that liberal here means the European notion of liberal, not the distorted American synonym for left-wing.)

[Ragimund Von Wallat]

''I am a Catholic centrist (in European terms), conservative leaning in matters of security and foreign policy, social-democrat leaning in some social/welfare issues'' AKA trendy flip-floper that stand for nothing but position himself i a way to be against anyone else that does...here come the status quo apostles,feeling 'rebel' while holding the line promoted by state-controleld or billionnaires-that-controll-the state-media.

[fkizz]

Well a multicultural society does seem to need higher Counter-Terrorism and Police budget.. or future ones. I mean someone has to keep the Ramming Trucks in place.

[ioannis76]

By "we" I mean, perhaps a bit too generously, those who support the values and norms lying at the basis of most "Western" societies, i.e. human rights, principles of law, democracy, etc.

My alleged moral superority comes only from the fact that I uphold standards of law and human rights that you seem hellbent on ignoring.

Apparently I am not a very well educated man. Therefore, I need to clarify this. You uphold standards of law and human rights, at the same time when you are willing to allow in Europe people from Pakistan, a country that FAILED to pass a law that forbids PEDOPHILIA, because not all of the Pakistanis who come to Europe will be pedophiles and we have to examine each case separately (ie, let them in, see if they rape a child, and if they do, then punish them). Do you even realize what this means? That you could (for reasons of security) ask people from Pakistan to bring you a printout of their criminal record, and it would come up CLEAN, even if these people are pedophiles. Is that your idea of upholding standards of law and human rights? You uphold standards of law and human rights by supporting Europe's offering shelter to SAA wartime defectors (a crime punishable by death in any army) and fleeing terrorists. You can keep on ignoring this and feeling superior.

1) I myself deciding whether or not to take someone into my car is not a situation where I act in a juridical/normative manner as a state representative, but as a private person following my personal interests.

States will behave according to the will of the people. As are the people, so are the rulers of these people. You are in effect saying that the state should do something which you, in your private life would refuse to do (and for very good reason).

As for the fear of a breakdown of public order you mentioned, one can simply hire more policemen or improve the efficiency of the police force by better equipment and coordination, and if all else fails take harsher measures (within the constitution's bounds) such as curfews, temporary closure of borders, etc. - all without summarily banning an entire religious denomination or flat out ignoring the human right to asylum.

Oh, great! Let's all live in a police state, with cameras every 10 meters, curfews, and half the people policing the other half, and call that progress!

all without summarily banning an entire religious denomination

And all without any effect whatsoever. First of all, all the measures you mentioned will require more and more resources. Like I said (and you seem hellbent to refuse to understand), a state's resources are not infinite. After the attacks in Paris, measures were taken all over Europe to prevent any more attacks. And then we had the Brussels attacks. Of course, measures were taken to ensure something like this would never happen again. And then we had the Berlin attack. And that's just in a little more than a year (November 2015 to December 2016).

Well, certainly not all men. I am sure we can select a few "drones" to serve the reproductive needs of the population and expel the rest. After all, you said yourself we should not show any leniency when we can save but one woman or child from being molested.

But I pointed out something else, too, which you didn't notice. People entering the country illegally, are guilty of (duh) illegal entry to the country. This is a CRIME. So, illegal immigrants are ALREADY criminals (they have entered the country (add any european country)) illegally (this is one more reason why some people's statistics are a farce). I understand that the perceived severity of this crime may vary from country to country, but all things being equal, I still think that in every country this crime is punishable by at least some time in prison.

I am sure we can select a few "drones" to serve the reproductive needs of the population

I volunteer.
The things I do for Europe...

[ioannis76]

Well a multicultural society does seem to need higher Counter-Terrorism and Police budget.. or future ones. I mean someone has to keep the Ramming Trucks in place.

They are not ramming trucks, you ignorant islamophobe They are the trucks of peace!!!
Please check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV1Q2wSP8Mc

[fkizz]

Being pro-Law is the new Rebel. The changes the world gets..

[ioannis76]

Being pro-Law is the new Rebel. The changes the world gets..

A distorted idea of law. Allowing in Europe a citizen of a country in which pedophilia is LEGAL, means that there is no way to detect the pedophile, even if you request that he present a copy of his criminal record, and you can only wait until he strikes. In which universe is this not dangerous?

[Harith]

A distorted idea of law. Allowing in Europe a citizen of a country in which pedophilia is LEGAL, means that there is no way to detect the pedophile, even if you request that he present a copy of his criminal record, and you can only wait until he strikes. In which universe is this not dangerous?

In which universe is pedophilia legal?

[ioannis76]

In Pakistan:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/15/an...-anti-islamic/
https://www.rt.com/news/329157-:wub:...age-law-islam/
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1027742/...ges-shot-down/

[Bethrezen]

They are not ramming trucks, you ignorant islamophobe They are the trucks of peace!!!
Please check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV1Q2wSP8Mc

What is the point of this discussion you initiated? I quoted this specifically for its very "academic" substance it contains.
You asked "So, what are the benefits of a multicultural society". So, you were just being sarcastic. Also the title implies this is a conclusion to something discussed earlier. Can you present a link to that discussion or was it just in your head?
Because you clearly do not care about any of the benefits presented to you by the people who bothered answering, all you care is bashing the very arguments you were asking for.

Also, why are you asking this on a multicultural forum? I think your answer to this question is essential in finding out whether you were seriously thinking about debating about multicultural societies when creating this thread.

[fkizz]

Also, why are you asking this on a multicultural forum?

The (very) Euphemistic brand name of the ideology is tricking you, this forum does allow too many dissenting opinions to manifest to be seriously called "multicultural".
And is not against you preserving your Romanian heritage, and does one have one main language for the website, english, despite the TM subforums.

[Prodromos]

If we're entertaining the sociological viewpoint for a moment, which may be relevant if you want to devise prevention programmes to reduce crime rates overall, then it always boils down to the fact that socio-economically disenfranchised people (formerly known as the "lower classes") are more prone to criminal behaviour, because guess what, the more comfortable, healthy, well-educated and cared for people are the less they are inclined to risk that by breaking the law. And now guess what again, coming to a foreign country with basically only your clothes as personal possession, be that as a legitimate asylum seeker or a mere economic migrant, no matter what you're gonna be at the bottom of the social ladder. Voilà, there's your reason for disproportionate crime rates without the need to drag in some thinly-veiled cultural prejudices or claims for the summary deportation of arbitrarily chosen groups including innocents.

The "collective punishment" part has been discussed already, so I won't comment on it. I just wanted to respond to this argument. A correlation between crime and socio-economic status doesn't mean the latter actually causes the former. It could be what causes criminality also causes low socio-economic status. It is senseless to blame crime on socio-economic status. Starvation may justify relatively petty crimes like theft of food but, other than that, there is no justification for heinous acts like assaults on women and other innocents. Ronald Reagan once said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." Frankly I am surprised to see a devout Christian so casually deny free will. Only two possible explanations for raping children and assaulting women exist:

- They are pure evil, in which case, they must die.

- They are imbeciles and completely unable to differentiate right from wrong, in which case they're a danger to society, and must be imprisoned or exiled.

[ioannis76]

Also the title implies this is a conclusion to something discussed earlier.

Not at all. Why do you conclude such a thing?

Because you clearly do not care about any of the benefits presented to you by the people who bothered answering

I am trying to "weight" the benefits along with the "negatives". I personally can only see negative things in multicultural societies, but then again maybe it's just me. Therefore, others might be able to enlighten me in that respect.

all you care is bashing the very arguments you were asking for.

Again, your assumption. Interesting bit the point that you consider the arguments "bashed".

The (very) Euphemistic brand name of the ideology is tricking you, this forum does allow too many dissenting opinions to manifest to be seriously called "multicultural".

What shocks me is the reaction. Why is asking a question so heavily criticized? Open-minded people should question everything. Why should the concept of multiculturalism be beyond reproach? Is that the new dogma? Are we to have the heretics who question multiculturalism burned at the stake?

[Harith]

In Pakistan:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/15/an...-anti-islamic/
https://www.rt.com/news/329157-:wub:...age-law-islam/
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1027742/...ges-shot-down/

From the Daily Caller source:

Existing legislation in Pakistan already violates Islamic law. The Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act 2014 places the legal age of marriage at 16 for women, but the recent proposal attempted to move that age up to 18 and also included serious punishment for the common practice of child marriage. That punishment would have included prison for up to two years for anyone caught engaging in child marriage.

Meanwhile:

In Europe, countries who have the age of consent set at 16 include Cyprus, Finland, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland.

For Austria, Germany, Portugal and Italy it is 14, and in France, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Greece it is 15.

Spain did have one of the lowest ages of consent on the continent at just 13, but recently agreed to raise this to 16.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: