Thilo Sarrazin interview on BBC

[Heraclitus]

[DaShi]

That's racist!

[Egbert]

That's a knee jerk reaction!

BTW I haven't watched the interview either.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

This is an old argument. It was new in Germany. He's at least partially right - cultural relativists that claim that the native culture has to adapt to newcomers, are indeed wrong. Homosexuality, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and civil liberties in general should not be restricted or forbidden to suit the violent/loud assumptions of backwards cultures.

[Egbert]

We have whacko migrants calling for whacko rules. We also have Australian born Aussie whackos calling for whacko rules. I don't hold it against migrants for having their quota of nutjobs. Their nutjob ideas aren't necessarily worse than than the nutjob ideas of our homegrown nutjobs. I see the whole thing as more of a nutjob problem than a race problem. The great majority of our migrants fit in, and they change us a bit too while they're fitting in.

[germanos]

This is an old argument. It was new in Germany. He's at least partially right - cultural relativists that claim that the native culture has to adapt to newcomers, are indeed wrong. Homosexuality, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and civil liberties in general should not be restricted or forbidden to suit the violent/loud assumptions of backwards cultures.

Nowadays tolerance of Homosexuals is merely an excuse to bash muslims/immigrants. As soon as they are 'gone', the gays will have to go back into the closet as well. And freedom of religion works towards the backward cultures as well.

[Barnabas]

That mas has a great moustache

[Zoetstofzoetje]

Nowadays tolerance of Homosexuals is merely an excuse to bash muslims/immigrants. As soon as they are 'gone', the gays will have to go back into the closet as well. And freedom of religion works towards the backward cultures as well.

In regard to your first point; maybe. We'll have to wait and see.

In regard to the second, yes and no. Take the example of animal butchering. Muslims and Jews insist on doing this in the traditional way. That traditional way was technologically advanced 2000 years ago - fresh kills prevents disease, and proper roasting kills the germs. But now we have methods which kill the animals without making them suffer excessively. So why do we allow a backwards method? "Religious freedom"?

[germanos]

It was you who brought up that (among others) religious freedom should not be [quote]: "restricted to suit ... backward cultures". I'm echoing you.

And the whole "my killing of animals is better then yours" is even more retarded then the chestbumbing of the superiour western natural acceptance of homosexuality.

[Al B. Sure!]

That's 53 minutes long! Holy ****.

[Heraclitus]

That's racist!

In the future use this:

[BeBMan]

Take the example of animal butchering. Muslims and Jews insist on doing this in the traditional way. That traditional way was technologically advanced 2000 years ago - fresh kills prevents disease, and proper roasting kills the germs. But now we have methods which kill the animals without making them suffer excessively. So why do we allow a backwards method? "Religious freedom"?

Not that I'm an expert in this, but I thought the Muslim/Jewish methods don't cause that much suffering (if properly done) since the animal falls into unconsciousness quickly when bleeding out. It's been described as relatively painless. I'm wondering if the usual industrial methods today are that much better for the animal.

Besides, it's just a dumb animal anyway. If it cannot defend his rights it's not our fault