I think Europe should let in more refugees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India

30 sec of research. There is even a wikipedia page ON religious violence in India. That doesn't mean that India is a state in permament guerrilla war, with bombs in the streets, etc...
its still a normal state. BUT, the percentage of religious violence is quite high compared to other countries.
Note: the higher percentage is in poor parts of India. HINT: thats becasue when you are poor and desperate you try to get stability from anything that gives you hope of change, like, for example, religion and superstition

 

''Religious violence in India, especially in recent times, has generally involved Hindus and Muslims.''


Whou woulda thunk it?

 

because like in any place most people practice religion peacufully and you do not know about the *drumroll* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India


ah Bane Shift, I didn't read to the end of the thread. beaten like a red-headed Irish stepchild.

except against Sikhs and then later by sihk extremists

sihk extremists, who want to enforce their religion, a religion that includes as one of its basic things freedom of religion.

no it's all gone downhill since the UN said the Dutch couldn't exploit and opress them and also do some massacres.

now they have a growing autocracy problem. I blame the Japanese.

 

You act like a paper you cite is sound evidence

 

Just to make it clear, I do not believe Religion equals intolerance and violence.

@Gutsa Try googling "how India treats its women", then maybe you'll understand why nobody there complains about Islam when compared to Europe.

 

it's just a damn fine excuse for it.

 

I did google it after posting.

"Over 2005 to 2009 period, an average of 130 people died every year from communal violence, or about 0.01 deaths per 100,000 population. The state of Maharashtra reported the highest total number of religious violence related fatalities over that 5-year period, while Madhya Pradesh experienced the highest fatality rate per year per 100,000 population between 2005 and 2009.[8] Over 2012, a total of 97 people died across India from various riots related to religious violence.[9] The world's average annual death rate from intentional violence, in recent years, has been 7.9 per 100,000 people."

Pretty low rate compared to the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_harmony_in_India

https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/unl...dias-diverse-religious-communities-live-peace
An interesting article from an insiders viewpoint.

Don't forget guys that India is a poor and extremely diverse country that was subjugated by the British Empire, Muslim Empire, Mongolians etc. and even though it did have religious riots, I'm pretty sure that the differences of religious dogma were not the cause (or at least not the sole cause).
Europeans, on the other hand, never really had such stark religious diversity presenting itself until the end of the 20th century and so far we seem to be doing pretty bad in that.

Maybe we shouldn't fight with muslims and try to learn from a country that has much more experience in conserving it's own culture aswell as merging with other cultures and living for centuries without much trouble?

Has anyone watched the anime "No. 6" btw? It's pretty sh**ty and vanilla but it's got quite an accurate perspective on how western civilization is working at the moment and how the rest of the world feels about it.

 

pretty sure only the brits managed taking all of india at any point in time. while islam did spread into india, especially the northern portions, i don't think it's accurate to say that any "muslim empire" subjugated the subcontinent. similar for the mongols.

 

Well, I didn't say the subjugated the whole continent, did I?

 

The mongols barely entered modern India.

 

it's a subcontinent, and your exact words were "India is a poor and extremely diverse country that was subjugated by the British Empire, Muslim Empire, Mongolians etc."

only one of them actually did that.


also as noted above, the mongols didn't go much into india. however a later steppe horde (timurids) did, after they lost much of their land in persia and central asia. they re-branded as the mughals, and i think were in a slight decline by the time the british showed up (also around the time of the sikhs rising).

they still didn't make it too far south.


i'm about 99% sure that the british are the only people in history to have taken/united all of india

 

india did have empires that tried to conquer all of india though.

none of them actually pulled it off.

 

Many things are, and that doesn't make all religions violent. I'm not defending ALL religions, I'm defending one's right to have a religion.

 

religions attempt to establish tradition. progressives attempt to destroy tradition. thus progressives don't like religions. Obama disrespected people of faith and spouted the word 'change' over and over. thats why progressives had a hard on for him. Trump on the other hand respects people of faith and wants to reinforce American tradition. thus progressives hate him.

 

Hahahahahahahahahaha

Holy, if this is even remotely true Americans are even xumber than I thought. That statement is ignorant on so many levels.

 

so many you cant even articulate one of them. and its spelled 'dumber' dummy.

 

Don't be like that Ragic, here I'll fix it.
Xumber: an unknown infinite amount times dumber
new word invented, what words have you enriched the English language with lately Ragic?

back on topic;

the largest issue in politics in Europe about the migrant thing is wether to see it as a national or an international problem. and it has both international and national factors. they end up in Italy, Greece and the balkans because of geography and then get blocked by other countries closing borders. they end up in France because of language ( former french colonies) or because they can't get into England. they end up in Sweden because of their very favourable social programs. to name a few examples.
the cost of living differs per country and so do the laws and social programs but because of the open borders allowing us to travel and trade so well the migrants naturally gravitate towards what they think gives them the best chances of a better future. this is an issue with as of yet no clear solution.

 

There is that tendency, sure, but different issues get associated or appropriated or even intentionally shoehorned into the political tribalism.

For example, environmentalism is an inherently conservative viewpoint - it is attempting to maintain the status quo - but it is also something that the 'conservative' right rail against, and the liberal left embrace. Relatedly, regulation of big business and anti-globalisation are destabilising factors, yet until Trump they were actively promoted by the right. 'Conservative' heroes Thatcher and Regan were essentially radicals. To take an extreame, fascists like Hitler were pulling in both ways - radically overhauling society and also promising a return to the past.

So at this point, I think we are beyond conservatism-progressives as meaningful terms. It just comes down to one portfolio of associated ideas or another.

 

hiding behind ever shifting labels. hiding behind faulty logic. hiding behind distraction tactics. hiding behind groupthink. always hiding. the best way to beat liberals is to shine a light on them.

 

hiding behind ever shifting labels. hiding behind faulty logic. hiding behind distraction tactics. hiding behind groupthink. always hiding. the best way to beat conservatives is to shine a light on them.