MigL

And one could say that 'bombing them back to the stone age' is a also a political act in retaliation for Syrian acts against neighboring countries. How exactly does that help move things towards a resolution ? And that's not really the question posed by the OP, is it ? The fact remains that millions of Middle Eastern Muslims are moving into Europe and North America. Not only is this a humanitarian cause, but we actually need the immigration ( and D. Trump is an idiot ). One problem is that the people we need most, young, able bodied, working-age males, are also the most easily radicalized. There are many other problems with the assimilation of large numbers of people of a dissimilar cultural background, and not all of them are OUR problem. Yet with the exception of a few people, and Tampitump's initial list, no-one has mentioned any problems that the Islamic culture ( yes, their religion is a BIG part of their culture ) puts in the baggage of these immigrants.

Look at it this way Tampitump... If you're a young kid, who's unsure about his sexuality, and wants to discuss it with other like minded kids, do you think its appropriate to subject him to bullying/namecalling ? Requesting a safe space would allow him and the others the freedom to discuss the issues important to them without being called 'fags'. You just want to be left alone. If, on the other hand, you're trying to enact social change, it does no good to start a twitter account about the treatment of young girls in Nigeria. You have to get in the face of those people and take your lumps. Similarly, if you don't agree with human rights in Saudi Arabia, it makes no sense to protest from the safety of US soil. Go to Saudi Arabia and protest their actions there. These are just examples off the top of my head, there are domestic examples I could have used ( such as BLM, but that is also under discussion in this thread ) That's how R. parks and M.L. King differed. they were willing to put themselves in an uncomfortable ( to say the least ) situation in an effort to enact social change.

I know. I just used basket cases as short form. But how can we compare platforms when D. Trump doesn't really have one ?

No silly. I meant in comparison to other countries. It was meant to be a play on John's comment that if its common enough, you may as well legalize it. You guys need to have a couple more drinks and 'lighten up'.

That's OK, Ophiolite, I'm not easily offended. But I'm Canadian and I have no problem criticizing the US. Neither do the Brit members . Nor Scotts ( can't leave Ophie out ). So again, what are some of the criticisms of Islamic culture ?

Someone ( the name escapes me at the moment ) once said that the metric for free speech is not consensual opinion but the most vile of opinions. And if this is the case I can get behind 'safe spaces'. Thank you all for the 'education'.

Aw come on, no one is biting on the NYPost article concerning C. Powell's e-mail about B.Clinton still 'di**ing' a blonde ( J. McMahon ) ? Poor Hillary, no wonder she's getting sick. All this deleted e-mail stuff is boring, and should be inconsequential. The only things that should be problematical are the DNC's fix to favor her nomination over B. Sanders ( not really her fault ) and the calling of a portion of the electorate 'basket' cases ( and that could be explained by stress and impending pneumonia ). So why not just admit it and end the story. By trying to cover it up with lies, she prolongs the story and keeps falling in the polls because people perceive her as un-trustworthy. Has anyone noticed how quiet D. Trump is lately? He doesn't have to say anything; unless things change H. Clinton will end up defeating herself.

Yeah, if the murder rate in the US gets any higher, they can de-criminalize it.

OK, so when the question is asked 'What can be done to improve Middle Easter Islamic societies?' you get about two serious answers, and then its right back to West bashing. Seriously, in five pages we have only Waitforufo, CharonY and Willie71 who think there are some ways that Middle Eastern Islamic societies can be improved and brought into the 21st century ? We must all agree with the OP question, then, because if things were so perfect there, people would be emigrating to the Middle East, not North America.

One more clarification, just for my peace of mind... Say there is a white supremacist group, down at U. of Alabama ( say ), and they meet to discuss 'white supremacy'. Not 'lynching negroes'/burning crosses/slavery or any of the hateful part of it, but simply to discuss aspects of white superiority over blacks. Do they have equal access to a 'safe space', and if not why not ?

A little off topic but... According to C. Powell, who has no use for D. Trump, but is an admirer and close friend of H. Clinton, that 'old dog' Bill is still diddling some blonde woman. And everyone knows about it ( although its news to me ). He has to be one of the most interesting Presidents since R. Nixon. That's what this election needed. A good, juicy, European style SEX scandal to liven it up.

Wow, every time I leave and come back these topics in the Politics section have moved so much its almost impossible to pick up from where you left off. Excellent discussions though. A point waitforufo made cought my eye... Some of you guys have often said things could be improved in the Western World if Religion disappeared, as it often hinders society's advancement ( you know who you are, don't make me go back and read posts in the Religion section to prove it ), and I would agree with you. However Western society is mostly secular, with 'pockets' of Religious fervor and even less fundamentalism. The Middle East, on the other hand, is mostly Religious fervor, quite a bit of fundamentalism ( all those rioters, in all those cities burning American flags and president effigies ), and 'pockets' of secularism. So, how could things be improved in the Middle East ? Don't hold back, give full and complete criticism. ( and don't just say 'by getting rid of Israel', as some of you may already be thinking )

Really Delta ? People kill each other because they're irritated by the heat ? If you live there, you gotta move, buddy !

OK, I see the distinction. A safe space is an area where people are free to express their own views without ridicule/harassment. But say you have a group of feminists discussing women's issues, and one has an opposing viewpoint, which may offend one or more of the others; are they, then, allowed to kick her out at the risk of violating her safe space ? Am I just overthinking this ? Is there an actual need for this ? In the old days ( doesn't seem so long ago ) if you said something offensive to someone, even jokingly, and they told you they were offended, you would refrain from doing it again. Simply out of common curtesy. Have we fallen so far that common curtesy now needs to be enforced or even legislated ?

Just for clarification ( on my part )... Say a school wanted to bring in a speaker to give a talk on a controversial subject ( fetal rights/ right to life, AGW myth/reality, Israel/Palestinian lands, etc. ), could a group protest this on the grounds that the subject violated their 'safe space' and made them feel uncomfortable ? I suppose they could always protest; that' a constitutional right. But would any of you agree with it ? Does this never happen ? Is my idea of safe spaces mistaken ? And if not, is it stifling discussion ?

And these 'pushes' are always subject to the workings of secular law, to be obtained trough elections and referendums. As opposed to Muslim countries where laws are 'handed down' by clerics.

Its funny going back though this thread, how all the people against me for suggesting H. Clinton would make a good president, are now her biggest supporters, and I'm finding faults with her. But I guess that's to be expected. Look at what the US ( and the world ) could end up with if she loses.

Well every once in a while he needs a little prompting, but he's getting better. He has some self-admitted issues to work through. But what about safe spaces ? When I was in University, there was no such thing. The places were meant to be for the discussion of controversial subjects. Not places where you needed coddling to 'protect your sensibilities'.

When did this become about Muslims living in North America ? They have left their oppressive societies for a reason, haven't they ? I thought we were talking about countries where Islam is the major religious institution ? And again, in the US, where the major religion is Catholicism, most Catholics ignore 99% of the bible ( except for Creation in the Southern US, of course ), and no-one is pushing for a return to Biblical rules ( Ok Swansont, not laws ), not even those idiots in the KKK.

Please elaborate. I don't quite get your point.

Really Swansont ? You hold D. Trump to the same level of honesty as other people ? How many people has he screwed over while making billions ( is he going to be like his buddy V. Putin, the richest man in the world )? How many times has he gone 'bankrupt' to avoid his debts ( you can't do that with a country )? H. Clinton's faults pale in comparison. But a lot of this crap is coming to light two months before the election. D.Trump, on the other hand, made a lot of extremely controversial statements early in the election to get large media face time, and having gained the exposure he needed, has now calmed down and seems almost normal. Instead of being on the defensive all the time, and trying to cover things up, why not just admit to things ( which are going to come out anyway ) and compare her 'faults' to the faults of D.Trump ? You know there is NO comparison !

As I said earlier, maybe I don't have a good understanding of 'safe spaces'. ( maybe Swansont can write something up like he did for Sharia ) I assume them to be areas where 'controversial ideas which may offend sensibilities are not to be discussed in case someone happens to overhear and is offended'. There is no in-your-face element of harassment , or anyone actively trying to convert your way of thinking, or stalking. We already have laws for these kinds of acts. But safe spaces are dis-allowing your so-called 'controversial' thinking or talking. And to me it just seems like a way to stifle discussion and 'homogenize' thinking.

The thing is everyone EXPECTS D. Trump to lie. We EXPECTED better of H. Clinton. She keeps on getting cought in these little lies. That bozo D. Trump shouldn't be able to win this election. But H. Clinton is doing her best to lose it. I, for one don't want a clown running the country next door. Smarten up, Hillary !

I don't see what your chart accomplishes Arete. A large number of the countries in your chart, a lot of which are overwhelmingly Muslim, support replacing secular law with Sharia law among Muslims. And if they had a candidate in the next election who proposed moving to Sharia law, he would easily get elected. That is if any of those places had free democratic elections. The point is that even in the Southern US, no one is proposing a return to Biblical law. Can we honestly say the same about Sharia ?

That being said, you should watch this video Strange. Its eye-opening and deals with some Canadian schools I'm familiar with. Makes me glad I stuck to the hard sciences.