"German multicultural society has failed" - Merkel

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What is the difference between covering arms legs or heads and covering faces.
Since your objections are essentialy about the dress code then you must object to all such dress codes being imposed eh?


So what? Is the dress code very different for women?

The thing it, it's not really oppressive. It more of a "we wear dresses out of tradition" rather than a husband making his wife wear a burqua

[tater]

It's difficult to defend a government-imposed dress code. Clearly there are some limits that have survived the courts over the years—women not being allowed to be topless, for example (a dress code that Muslims and Christian fundies can both agree with, apparently ).

The face covering thing is indeed different, however. It masks the identity of the person so dressed. I think it is entirely reasonable to say that anyone wearing a disguise in public should be accepting of the fact that they will be hassled (constantly) by the police. I think private entities in general should also be allowed to discriminate at will, for ANY reason. "No Blacks served here" is fine by me—as is "No Whites served here." Or, "No shoes, no shirt, no service. Also, no service for anyone covering their face."

Yeah, there'd be some discriminatory businesses. They'd be at a disadvantage compared to their competition. It should be a free choice they make.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by tater

Once people are here in the US, they have freedoms ("Natural Rights") they would not have elsewhere in the West. I'll defend their broad 1st Amendment Rights as I defend my broad 2d Amendment Rights, etc. I cannot do otherwise and claim to care about what the US is all about.

Not to be a dick, but exactly what rights do I have, that I don't have anywhere else in the west? I m living in the US since 2004 and still trying to find an area where i am supposed to be more free or have more rights than I did in Germany. If anything else, I felt more secure over there than I do now. I didnt need a Gun to protect my family, and I could leave the house and go the local home improvement store or mall without being mugged.

Is that what freedom and more rights are supposed to be?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

I think the main problem is that Muslims want to move away from the turmoil and strife THEY have created, But do not feel as if they should have to change one bit in their new country. Actually, quite the opposite, they feel the new place should change to accommodate them. With all the strife these Muslims have caused in Europe, This statement from Germany does not come as a surprise.

I go to Western Michigan University In the U.S.A, recently, I've seen more and more women with their faces covered in burqua style garb. I can't say I'm too happy about it. It stands as a symbol for oppression of women; something that we in America have worked to end for so long. I would suppose that this all comes with a hint of xenophobia, but then again, the whole idea of coming to america is adopting our culture, not the other way around. I would actually support a ban of the burqua here in the US. too. It's clearly against our freedoms for a man to expect his significant other to wear one.

Wow, well said. I didn't see that one coming from you (although I do disagree wtih the ban on any attire).

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Thomen

Not to be a dick, but exactly what rights do I have, that I don't have anywhere else in the west? I m living in the US since 2004 and still trying to find an area where i am supposed to be more free or have more rights than I did in Germany. If anything else, I felt more secure over there than I do now. I didnt need a Gun to protect my family, and I could leave the house and go the local home improvement store or mall without being mugged.

Is that what freedom and more rights are supposed to be?

If you were a business owner you'd immediately understand that you have greater rights in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't open a store on Sunday, right - not to mention extremely strict hours of permitted operation otherwise.

What about compulsory civil/military service? Or what about the mandatory distribution of half your assets (is this just liquid?) to your nearest relatives despite your will? What about truck driving laws?

What you're talking about is the classic security v. liberty argument. The culture you come from has decided that they prefer security. Our culture has gone for liberty. Like it or not, that means we are a freer nation than most others, with all the problems incumbent upon that freedom.

It is a tradeoff to be sure. Here, we accept the perhaps .0001% chance of getting murdered at any moment in exchange for exapanded freedoms. Germans, for instance, prefer a .000001% chance (those numbers are for dramatization purposes only) so they have further restrictions. Neither side is right or wrong.

For me the discussion falls into what I believe are universally inalienable rights. Ultimately I believe that all rights are subordinate to that of self-determination. Perhaps one can make the argument that, say, gun ownership is inherent to self-determination but I find that to be academic at best, as simply being able to walk down the street in the reasonable manner of your choosing to the reasonable destination of your choosing as more inherent to freedom.

Ultimately that means that none of us should be slaves to any birthright or the determination of another man, and we are only restricted by the impact our decisions would make upon others. The Muslim world does not agree with me on that premise, hence the the worldwide emmigration of not simply the individuals but the culture of Islam which is outright opposed to self-determination especially in the case of gender.

Gimpy has made some excellent points, although I do not agree necessarily with his conclusion. There is way too much "imported oppression" going on, and its typically originating from the Muslim world. The quote from Roosevelt that August posted was excellent, and I agree with it in whole. This goes back to the discussion that Skybird and I have been engaged in for months now, that essentially freedom makes no sense when it is used to destroy itself.

Hence my idea about self-determination being the unalienable human right.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Thomen

Not to be a dick, but exactly what rights do I have, that I don't have anywhere else in the west? I m living in the US since 2004 and still trying to find an area where i am supposed to be more free or have more rights than I did in Germany. If anything else, I felt more secure over there than I do now. I didnt need a Gun to protect my family, and I could leave the house and go the local home improvement store or mall without being mugged.

Is that what freedom and more rights are supposed to be?

Is there a State church in Germany? Even if not powerful as it once may have been, what we'd call a "blue law" in the US, is there separation—explicit—of church and state? How about political speech? Can you be a Nazi in Germany if you like? Hateful as that might be, you cannot ban a party and have free political speech, the two are mutually exclusive. The US never banned the Communist Party (CPUSA) even though it was funded, and completely controlled by Moscow, for example.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by Aramike

If you were a business owner you'd immediately understand that you have greater rights in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't open a store on Sunday, right - not to mention extremely strict hours of permitted operation otherwise.

What about the employees that want Sundays off? They are SOL because the owner wants the store open on Sundays?

And, I was a business owner over there, and I certainly enjoyed my weekends off.

What you consider freedoms, is nothing more than shifting rights (and freedoms) around for the purpose of profit (which is another freedom, more or less)

It is a toss up between the rights and freedoms of employers and employees. As an employee you have way more rights and freedom in Germany than you have in the US. Isn't that freedom also or are you saying employees should have less freedom for the sake of generating profit for their employer?

More freedom is not necessary equal to making more money for your boss.

However, I can see the flip side to this, and that is the consumer, but then again if we keep following this we go around in a circle.

What about compulsory civil/military service? Or what about the mandatory distribution of half your assets (is this just liquid?) to your nearest relatives despite your will? What about truck driving laws?

Until not too long ago there was also a draft here in the US. Yes, is not longer used, but it was not repealed or anything, it was just not extended any further after it expired the last time around. Even today there is a remnant of this still on the books and is mandatory (Selective Service).

What you're talking about is the classic security v. liberty argument. The culture you come from has decided that they prefer security. Our culture has gone for liberty. Like it or not, that means we are a freer nation than most others, with all the problems incumbent upon that freedom.

It is a tradeoff to be sure. Here, we accept the perhaps .0001% chance of getting murdered at any moment in exchange for exapanded freedoms. Germans, for instance, prefer a .000001% chance (those numbers are for dramatization purposes only) so they have further restrictions. Neither side is right or wrong.

You got a good point there. I'd like to know what would be considered a good mix, though.

IMHO, this whole discussion about which country provides more or less freedom is purely philosophical and definition of freedom depends more often than not on the mindset of the individual. I also do think that there is no 'wrong' or 'right' in this, since it is largely depended on the individual interpretation of freedom.

Originally Posted by Tater

Is there a State church in Germany? Even if not powerful as it once may have been, what we'd call a "blue law" in the US, is there separation—explicit—of church and state? How about political speech? Can you be a Nazi in Germany if you like? Hateful as that might be, you cannot ban a party and have free political speech, the two are mutually exclusive. The US never banned the Communist Party (CPUSA) even though it was funded, and completely controlled by Moscow, for example.

State church or Religion? I think, the state religion is Christianity, but don't ask me which denomination. Since nobody can force you to follow it, it is a rather mood argument and i never cared for it either way.

You actually can be a Nazi if you like, you are just not allowed to publicly spread your dogma, which, as you rightly noted can be seen as an infringement.

The ban of the Nazi parties was more on the grounds of hate speech and criminal activity ( please correct me if I am wrong), than anything else, I think. Even in the US, you can get into trouble for this.

[tater]

Right now hate crime laws add penalty for actual crimes committed. That is still wrong IMHO, killing someone is just as bad if you yell "roast beef!" while killing them as if you yell "faggot!"

I honestly don't know about Europe in general, but the mere fact that Wilders could be charged at all for what he said regarding Muslims is impossible in the US.

The price of freedom of political speech and general expression is that you have to hear stuff that offends you sometimes. Better to have everyone offended, than have everyone have to shut up.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by tater

Right now hate crime laws add penalty for actual crimes committed. That is still wrong IMHO, killing someone is just as bad if you yell "roast beef!" while killing them as if you yell "faggot!"

I honestly don't know about Europe in general, but the mere fact that Wilders could be charged at all for what he said regarding Muslims is impossible in the US.

The price of freedom of political speech and general expression is that you have to hear stuff that offends you sometimes. Better to have everyone offended, that everyone shut up.

See, i do agree with you, 100 gaziilion %.. but unfortunately, reality is somewhat different and I do not think it will change anytime soon.

[Aramike]

What about the employees that want Sundays off? They are SOL because the owner wants the store open on Sundays?

You have got to be kidding...

The employer (who risks everything) should be beholden to the employee (who risks nothing) when that employee has the freedom at any time to leave their job?

Because they want a specific day off?

Really?

And, I was a business owner over there, and I certainly enjoyed my weekends off.

But you weren't FREE to do otherwise.

This is a discussion about freedom, not personal preference. If you want the latter to dictate society be prepared to outlaw gays, athiesm and all religions not Christian, salt, etc.

It is a toss up between the rights and freedoms of employers and employees. As an employee you have way more rights and freedom in Germany than you have in the US. Isn't that freedom also or are you saying employees should have less freedom for the sake of generating profit for their employer?

You DO know what the term "freedom" means, right? Hint: it has nothing to do with the subjective concept of convienience. Employees in the US as just as free to not work a job that requires weekend work as they are free to CHOOSE such a job.

What you propose is eliminating that freedom altogether, because YOU like your weekends off. I honestly can't believe I'm actually reading that...

Until not too long ago there was also a draft here in the US. Yes, is not longer used, but it was not repealed or anything, it was just not extended any further after it expired the last time around. Even today there is a remnant of this still on the books and is mandatory (Selective Service).

Umm, okay? Your point?

Word check: compulsory. All German males MUST perform this service. How does that equate to the Selective Service system which is not used?

Sorry to be harsh in my earlier comments this post, but really?

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by Aramike

You have got to be kidding...

The employer (who risks everything) should be beholden to the employee (who risks nothing) when that employee has the freedom at any time to leave their job?

Because they want a specific day off?

Really?But you weren't FREE to do otherwise.

This is a discussion about freedom, not personal preference. If you want the latter to dictate society be prepared to outlaw gays, athiesm and all religions not Christian, salt, etc.You DO know what the term "freedom" means, right? Hint: it has nothing to do with the subjective concept of convienience. Employees in the US as just as free to not work a job that requires weekend work as they are free to CHOOSE such a job.

What you propose is eliminating that freedom altogether, because YOU like your weekends off. I honestly can't believe I'm actually reading that...Umm, okay? Your point?

Word check: compulsory. All German males MUST perform this service. How does that equate to the Selective Service system which is not used?

Sorry to be harsh in my earlier comments this post, but really?

You know what.. you are right. There is no other free country, and freedom is purely as you define it.

[Betonov]

I have been a clinical psychologist. Forget the idea, it is not possible. And any questionaires you might consider can be cheated by spreading the word on what kind of "right" answers the subject is expected in order to pass the test.

too bad. maybe we will be able to implement something like this when technology improves.

And about the ongoing debate about liberty.
I dont feel any less free than I would be in the US. Stores are opened on sundays, I can travel anywhere I want whenever I want, no curfews... the only liberty missing is the freeedom from idiotic politicians.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Thomen

You know what.. you are right. There is no other free country, and freedom is purely as you define it.

Freedom means something specific. While no society can be completely "free" (the very terms society and freedom are in a sense antithetical) the society which, by and large, provides its people's with the greatest ability of self-determination is the society which is the most free.

Not being able to open your store on Sunday runs counter-intuitive to that notion. Not being able to even make the choice to work or not work for such an employer also runs against that notion.

However, I think you're mischaracterizing my point. I'm not suggesting that cultural differences in the amount of self-determination is wrong - but I am suggesting that such differences are examples of one society being less free than another.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Whether or not these new slogans by Merkel and Seehofer are something more than just lip-confessions born by mere opportunism, remains to be seen.

e****ingxactly!
Wow, Merkel contributes something to a discussion which is going on since years!
Like everything coming from the Merkel-regime her words have to be taken with some kilos of salt. So what does Merkel want, besides the demand that immigrants should learn the language of the country where they live - which is such a minimalistic demand it doesn't even need to be mentioned, it's a matter of course? What are the values which define Germany?
Tada: here's the answer: she is talking about that anyone who doesn't accept the christian conception of man (Menschenbild) has no place in Germany! Go and choke on a broom, Angie!

[Skybird]

Merkel is an intellectual void, and it often seems to me that her past as FDJ propaganda chief secretary overrides her behaviour as a physics scientist by far: many word shells at home to secure her power, little linkup to realities, plus a pathologic craving for unconditional harmony on the international stage to demonstrate that No, Germany still has not become the international rogue again and still is so very very sorry - look how cute and kind we are today. How she just has allowed ONCE AGAIN to get bamboozeled by Sarkozy, still leaves me fuming, and the damage there not only is straight breaking of earlier promises, but represents a damage to the German basic interests that what she accepted there without any realistic, solid compensation, borders high treason. Who needs enemies with leaders like her, giving up our most vital interests, like she does, and repeatedly now - for nothing substantial in return? In the long run, we will transfer additional billions and hundreds of billions (additional to those that we are already doomed to pay), due to her unability to bear diplomatic conflict.

What a zero. I thought Schröder was a bad chancellor. But Merkel easily represents the worst and most naive chancellorship I have experienced in my adult life since my youth years in the 80s. Internationally, her missionary spirit (glorious German example alone should heal the climate and and serve as a model for others of how to mean it well with all and everybody, and don'T we mean it oh so very very well indeed...) and her naivety, is unbelievable.

To think that 5 years ago I hoped that due to her academic background and my conclusion on her sober, rational mindset (hahahahaha...) she might turn out to be compared to Thatcher (not that I'm a fan of Thatcher) - how wrong I was.

One of the already very few occasions when I dared to invest some trust into a politician in advance - the well-deserved penalty once again followed soon after. Moral of the story: one does not invest trust in career politicians - NEVER.