Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/15/08 11:39 AM, Memorize wrote:

News Alert: "PoxPower was kicked out of France for having "pox" in his name. The French Government released a statement saying that due to the selective choosing of such an identity, he is too submissive of chicken pox. They have decided not to grant him citizenship"

even as a joke this makes no sense.

At 7/15/08 11:48 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

If Paris had been on the brink of collapse due to an outbreak of chicken pox, I would agree with that decision.

At 7/15/08 11:51 AM, poxpower wrote:

even as a joke this makes no sense.

It's really no different than the French Government.

Here we have a muslim woman who decides to wear what she wants to wear and follow what she wants to follow. She's already had children and speaks French with ease, and is married to a French man.

She is not harming others. She is not spewing hate filled rhetoric or advocating for the nation's collapse.

No one is being harmed, and the French government decided that just because she wears a certain item of clothing and she's religious, that she is "too submissive" (This... coming from the very people who thought Saddam wasn't getting a fair trial).

Actually, she's no worse than you and your chickenpox, Poxy.

Was it too riddled of complexity for your simple mind to understand, Poxy-poo?

And yes, I do realize that their government has the final word.

I'm not disputing that.

At 7/15/08 11:48 AM, Gunter45 wrote: If Paris had been on the brink of collapse due to an outbreak of chicken pox, I would agree with that decision.

Paris is on the brink of collapse due to veiled Muslim women then, is it?

At 7/15/08 12:56 PM, Mr-Pope wrote: Paris is on the brink of collapse due to veiled Muslim women then, is it?

I've already made a point of this, but I guess you didn't bother reading the thread.

In 2006, Paris was nearly ripped apart in riots spurned by the culture clash between the French and Muslim cultures. Now, whether or not either side is at fault is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the tension in France can still be cut with a knife. With such a culture clash that could erupt into even more widespread riots at the slightest provocation, France has every right to side with its own culture.

Given that, France has every right to deny citizenship to people who are unwilling to even attempt assimilating.

the same people that took part in the riots were mainly poor, working class. damn Islam.

At 7/15/08 02:02 PM, SolInvictus wrote: the same people that took part in the riots were mainly poor, working class. damn Islam.

Well if you waste your time praying and asking Allah for favors, chances are you'll be poor sooner or later.

At 7/15/08 02:03 PM, poxpower wrote: Well if you waste your time praying and asking Allah for favors, chances are you'll be poor sooner or later.

ah, it was obviously because of that and not because the families' earners were poor, relatively uneducated immigrants from former French colonies whose people had been and still are looked down upon by many. got it.

At 7/15/08 02:02 PM, SolInvictus wrote: the same people that took part in the riots were mainly poor, working class. damn Islam.

And yet, it was split along cultural lines.

But, no, you're right, it was an economic thing, culture had absolutely nothing to do with it. I mean, it's not like working-class French natives were up in arms against working-class Muslims, too. That would make France's decision to deny this woman's citizenship make sense and we can't have that.

At 7/15/08 02:15 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

ah, it was obviously because of that and not because the families' earners were poor, relatively uneducated immigrants from former French colonies whose people had been and still are looked down upon by many. got it.

I don't want to get into a whole thing, but just know :

- as education of a people rise, religion goes down
- as income of a people rise, religion goes down
- when there are disasters, religion goes up
- when there is war, religion goes up
- when women get rights, religion goes down
- when a country stops being racist, religion goes down.

And it goes on a sliding scale. The more religious an overall population, the more prone they are to racism, sexism, stupidity, being poor etc.

You draw your own conclusions.

My main problem with the Qu'ran is, anti-religious people focus on it too much rather than the FAR MORE OBVIOUSLY retarded Hadiths.

At 7/15/08 11:43 AM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 7/15/08 08:13 AM, morefngdbs wrote: What taxes ?
She doesn't work...what she's told, when she's told to do it...like a dog, only without as much freedom as a dog enjoy's.

I have absolute faith in any governments ability to find a way to tax someone.

Yeah, I suppose they could make her wear a collar & a dog tag...that's a tax, hell its not like she would complain.

Any random baby that is born is automatically a citizen. At that time, the baby has no value to the french government...

;;Actually if Mama's gotta go, they have every right to send off the child with her.

if information about you comes out later that would have blocked your citizenship being granted ,,, you are stripped of your citizenship & you are deported, no matter how good

What does that have to do with my claim? Sure if it comes out that you killed 18 people and are a fugitive from the south african government ok, but democracy is ALL about how every person has equal worth and equal say and equal rights, regardless of social stature.

;;
You don't have to have killed anyone!!! you can simply have lied on your form. Who ever toold you MURDER is all that can keep you out?

Morality has no basis in a discussion on Law.

Are you serious?
"We should make murder illegal because it immoral to murder someone"

What the f*&^ is it with you & murder? Murder is not illeagal because its immoral , where did you ever come up with that idea ? ? ?

The reason you see images of the scales of justice being held by one who is blindfolded ,should be a bit of a hint there dude.

That all persons are equal under the law?
That law does not discriminate between black and white, rich and poor?
I don't get you.

;; First if you truely believe that the laws for the rich /priviledged/ politically connected is the same as it is for us working people...you need to take off your rose colored glasses & get out into the real world & have a look around !

lulz. You really don't think that the reason pot is illegal is because a lot of people believe it is immoral to get high?

Actually morality has nothing to do with pot laws.

Law & Morality do not always go hand in hand.

That being said I have no right to tell someone where she can and can not live.

;;
Neither do I, but the people who govern the country I live in do !
They can let in & then kick out who ever they please, & there's little to nothing that can be done about it.

Hopfully these people don't find out there's a large Frenh Population in Canada !

At 7/15/08 02:18 PM, Gunter45 wrote: But, no, you're right, it was an economic thing, culture had absolutely nothing to do with it.

i never said it didn't.

At 7/15/08 04:53 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i never said it didn't.

Okay, then I'm wondering if what you're saying was a counterpoint or what. Were you just stating something as a non sequitur?

At 7/15/08 05:14 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Okay, then I'm wondering if what you're saying was a counterpoint or what. Were you just stating something as a non sequitur?

the entire explanation for the riots provided by many people in this thread was that Islam and associated cultures were the cause. i simply pointed out it was extremely likely other factors played more significant roles and that these factors were being ignored in order to justify blaming Islam and shunning the Islamic community and culture.

At 7/15/08 01:42 PM, Gunter45 wrote:
I've already made a point of this, but I guess you didn't bother reading the thread.

It doesn't really matter whether I pick you up on your earlier post or this one.

In 2006, Paris was nearly ripped apart in riots spurned by the culture clash between the French and Muslim cultures. Now, whether or not either side is at fault is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the tension in France can still be cut with a knife. With such a culture clash that could erupt into even more widespread riots at the slightest provocation, France has every right to side with its own culture.

Given that, France has every right to deny citizenship to people who are unwilling to even attempt assimilating.

Paris was far from being "nearly ripped apart" by the 2005 riots, and any current tensions (which are obviously very real) do not mean Paris is "on the brink of collapse". It's such a needlessly sensationalist comment to make. Obviously there was huge damage but only something like 1 casualty, and representing it as simply a "culture clash" is disingenuous or ignorant, there's ALWAYS going to be conflict when any minority is ghettoised, plagued by unemployment and feels that they face discrimination. There were very few Islamic factors involved - largely social. It was lot's of pissed off, poverty-stricken young men being dicks and fighting with police, it's not as if it was an attack on secularism for goodness' sake.

But anyway, France is still granting plenty of citizenships to young Muslim men, i.e the demographic actually involved in the riots, whilst denying this woman mainly on dubious gender equality lines which are flimsy at best. That is the point I was actually getting at.

At 7/15/08 08:17 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 7/15/08 05:14 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Okay, then I'm wondering if what you're saying was a counterpoint or what. Were you just stating something as a non sequitur?

the entire explanation for the riots provided by many people in this thread was that Islam and associated cultures were the cause. i simply pointed out it was extremely likely other factors played more significant roles and that these factors were being ignored in order to justify blaming Islam and shunning the Islamic community and culture.

It'd be like blaming half of violent crimes on black people rather than their economic outlook.

But I doubt the US government would get anywhere saying something like that.

While I did exaggerate, it's still a really hot issue and one that is exacerbating the other dividing factors (after all, while there were valid economic reasons for the conflicts, sure, the conflict was still along cultural lines). My point being that, while I don't believe France should completely bar Muslims from entry, of course, I think they still have a compelling interest in limiting immigration from people who refuse to assimilate.

It's a sensitive issue and I'm siding with France's measures to protect its stability. It's not a basic human right to gain citizenship to whichever country you want. France isn't doing anything monstrous and I can see where they're coming from. I fail to see a problem.

At 7/15/08 04:19 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
Actually if Mama's gotta go, they have every right to send off the child with her.

I guess thats a dif between States and Canada, here we call them Anchor Babies.

You don't have to have killed anyone!!! you can simply have lied on your form. Who ever toold you MURDER is all that can keep you out?

Whatever, irrelevent to my contention that the french government is wrong.

Morality has no basis in a discussion on Law.

Are you serious?
"We should make murder illegal because it immoral to murder someone"

What the f*&^ is it with you & murder? Murder is not illeagal because its immoral , where did you ever come up with that idea ? ? ?

If murder was moral, it would be legal.

;; First if you truely believe that the laws for the rich /priviledged/ politically connected is the same as it is for us working people...you need to take off your rose colored glasses & get out into the real world & have a look around !

Certainly not, but the blindfold represents that ideal.

lulz. You really don't think that the reason pot is illegal is because a lot of people believe it is immoral to get high?

Actually morality has nothing to do with pot laws.

You are very wrong.

Neither do I, but the people who govern the country I live in do !
They can let in & then kick out who ever they please, & there's little to nothing that can be done about it.

They can, and there is little to be done about it, but they are wrong.

France now considers women who wear burkas to be prisoners. if this is the case then they have willingly failed to help the woman to who they denied entry despite being aware of her plight. nicely done France.

At 7/17/08 12:23 PM, SolInvictus wrote: France now considers women who wear burkas to be prisoners. if this is the case then they have willingly failed to help the woman to who they denied entry despite being aware of her plight. nicely done France.

Fact: It is a government's duty to help out with everyone in the world's problems, no matter what.

France has problems enough as it is. Their immigration policy is their business, they don't have to let anyone become a citizen if they don't want to. Again, people don't have a basic human right to become a citizen of whichever country they want.

At 7/16/08 09:08 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 7/15/08 04:19 PM, morefngdbs wrote: They can let in & then kick out who ever they please, & there's little to nothing that can be done about it.

They can, and there is little to be done about it, but they are wrong.

;;
How can they possibly be wrong?
It is their country, they (the people acting as the Government) are charged with taking care of their countries interests.
They believe it is not for the good of the country that these type of people be granted citizenship !
How can they be wrong ?
Their decission is no . Many times in everyones life the answer is NO.
MAybe ,& I'm willing to grant you this, maybe in your opinion its wrong.
That doesn't make it wrong in their opinion ...obviously , & their opinion is the only one that matters.

At 7/17/08 01:46 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Their immigration policy is their business, they don't have to let anyone become a citizen if they don't want to.

i know, and i don't have that much of a problem with the rejection of that woman. i just find it hypocritical to reject her for being to submissive/extremist and then go on to say that those women are prisoners.

At 7/17/08 05:01 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

i know, and i don't have that much of a problem with the rejection of that woman. i just find it hypocritical to reject her for being to submissive/extremist and then go on to say that those women are prisoners.

Those women in general, but like I said she was in court, she had her ticket out and she didn't take it so screw her.
If they decree that this is not tolerated, then those women will go to trial and they can denounce their husband and if they don't want to and they're too submissive, there's really nothing else we can do for them so they can go back from whence they came and leave us non-medieval dwellers alone.

At 7/17/08 05:01 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i know, and i don't have that much of a problem with the rejection of that woman. i just find it hypocritical to reject her for being to submissive/extremist and then go on to say that those women are prisoners.

That's where the first part of my post comes into play. There are a lot of shitty situations in the world, but it's simply not in a country's best interest to try to solve them all at the expense of its own well-being. The United States acknowledges that millions upon millions of people are starving every day and yet we consume inordinate amounts of food. That doesn't make us hypocritical, it just means we're not martyrs.

The French government doesn't have to solve other people's problems, it's only tasked with handling the affairs of its own citizens, that's why it's not called the World government.

At 7/12/08 06:02 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 7/12/08 06:27 AM, Alphabit wrote: if they don't respect western culture, what the hell are they doing in our countries.

I thought western culture was based on freedom.

yeah, we should be free to not be invaded by burka wearing women

At 7/18/08 09:45 AM, Gunter45 wrote: That's where the first part of my post comes into play.

i really missed some obvious sarcasm there.

all i'm saying is that it creates an image problem (if not an ethical one) to act along a certain set of ideals and then express another.
obviously they could say Muslims are the best people in the world and still bar them from immigrating, its up to them to decide, but generally decisions and statements regrading relevant issues should be coherent.

Nobody thinks that this is about more than them fearing one woman? Seriously, they're making an example that extremist Islam, whether male or female, is absolutely NOT permissible in their country because it causes serious conflict.

As for this woman being harmless because she is a woman, remember that women can have babies. Extremist women often raise extremist kids, including the extremist males that are the men causing trouble.

Love the French logic.

"We're trying to ease the relationship with muslims in this country"

"Muslim woman wanting citizenship? Denied"

At 7/18/08 02:29 PM, Memorize wrote: Love the French logic.

"We're trying to ease the relationship with muslims in this country"

"Muslim woman wanting citizenship? Denied"

Because allowing more of the culture that's clashing with theirs in is better?