You have a very unpleasant and condescending way of arguing, and it sounds like you're reusing other people's arguments.
Excuse me? You called me an idiot and a fanatic without provocation and or reason.
I wrote a long reply but deleted it. It's not because I am tired or arguing, it is because I find you tiresome. Look it up in a dictionary.
You made this whole thing primarily about semantics and kept coming back to it. Even though I provided ample proof that the word "racist" is a perfect fit. Read again, if you don't believe me.
Then you started changing the discussion from being about semantics to being about me as a fanatic idiot, while I tried to keep the discussion about racism. You made it all about personal attacks on me. I tried to explain you stuff.
Read the conversation again, if you don't believe me.
So I don't know how I should take this. You find it tiresome to talk about issues, but prefer personal attacks?
Like I said before, I think you never could accept any evidence that certain groups are more likely to commit crimes,
So gays commit more crimes if you outlaw gay sex. What is your issue? Specifiy. What crime? Financial fraud? It costs society in Europe a couple hundred billions in taxpayers money to fix the banking crisis of 2007 and another couple hundred billions in the following economic downturn. Greece defrauded the EU to get into the Eurozone. And responsible people in the EU knew about it. How much is that currently costing us?
You need to specify. What crime? How significant is it? Is it costing a lot of money?
more likely to kill their sisters if they have a boyfriend their family doesn't approve of
Well, where do you think the sister is safer? In Europe or in Turkey? And how exactly does this effect you?
more likely to beat up gay people,
A gay person told me he is much more terrified at the thousands of people that take part in right wing populist demonstrations, that are currently against Muslims, than he is afraid of a couple Muslims. Because, as I already wrote in every single comment the racist targets are interchangeable. Today it's Muslims, tomorrow maybe gays. Who knows? Let's wait for the next HIV/Aids epidemic to find out?
I think I am going to stop here. You list your prejudices. So what?
If this is many people's personal experience, you will say it's anecdotal or people only see things that confirm their preconceived ideas.
You are simply describing how anecdotal evidence and preconception works. You still seem to give validity to that, even though you know it is wrong. Don't you think you shouldn't, if you know it is wrong?
If I send a link to a site with statistics, you will say the site is racist, the sample size too small, the study flawed, or that these studies are meaningless.
Well, you didn't post anything. And yes, some sources are more reputable than others. Stormfront would be not reputable.
If I say I'd welcome moderate, westernized and preferably atheist people from those same countries and if anything we need more of those people now, you'd say I'm just trying to sound moderate but secretly I'm still totally racist if I say that in practice, that would be unlikely to realize.
So how do you want to sort them out? Brainscan? Interview? Lies? Clothing style? If I lived in Lebanon right now (with the crisis in Syria never ending), I would gladly switch my clothing to anything you want to get to Europe. I think most refugees from Africa think the same thing.
I think this is an important issue you brought up. Because it shows that the world doesn't work the way you think. And that you don't think your ideas through. After all, you accuse me of not wanting to "dicuss" possible issues with other cultures. Yet you are doing this under a link about active discrimination against other cultures, instead of dissatisfaction with certain issues. Those are two different things. One thing would be to say "I don't like it that Jews seem to have so much money." That is discussion. 50% of Danes said they want action. "I want Jews to wear a visible sign on their clothing to identify them, like a yellow star." That is active discrimination. Second step. We are beyond discussing problems. We have decided, that there are problems based on our preconceived ideas, media bias and prejudices and want to discriminate now.
In other words, you try to make rational, intelligent arguments, but your starting points are beliefs that you will never change.
Well, where do you start at? I usually start at a set of moral codes, derived from modern philosophers like Kant or Kirkegaard. The ideological fathers of our modern Western ethics. Other people like to ground themselves in holy books like the bible or the quran. What do you stand on?
You've stated before that somewhere deep down inside you're probably also racist, because that's human nature. That's very brave of you to admit and you must be so open-minded and honest with yourself.
Why? 50% of Danes just agreed to some very racist point. I am brave, because I admit that is normal? And I am normal?
people with certain cultural backgrounds, might, you know, just maybe.... behave differently and have different ideas
I made that abundantly and repeadetly clear that I totally agree. Again I must refer you back to our conversation. Read it.
and sometimes in ways that are not so good....... can I say it like that?
Well, duuuuuh! Why are we even talking. Because I don't like your racist culture. Are other people racist, too? YES! Are our (not yours!) modern and liberal secular Western values better than that? Totally!! Do they have those values in Saudi Arabia? China? Nope! Are people in Japan racist? Hell, yea! Do I think our values are surperior? Oh yes! Which is why I defend them. Against you. Because they include basing your opinions on facts. Not on heresay. And built upon those are our laws, which allow immigration for different reasons and on some levels. And they forbid discrimination on religious grounds. It is called "religious freedom" and is one of the most basic values we have.
You know, racist in the sense of actually RACIST racist, about RACE.
You still haven't clarified why you are so hung up about semantics? You don't want to call those places where planes land "airports", because there are no ships there, therefore they can't be called ports. They must be called "airfields". And anti Jewish sentiment can't be called Anti-Semitism, because Semites are people from the Arabian peninsula. How many million examples do I have to list in order to explain to you that you are hung up on semantics? Take a deep breath and think about that one for a moment, please?
And you are trying to tell me, I am hard to argue with?? Comeone!
You're calling me a racist, so what... you think I believe in racial superiority and I don't want non-white people intermingling with "our" people?
Nope. You still don't seem to get the gist of my long comment about the word racism. And how it encompasses cultural racism. And why that change in semantics (supported by the vast majority of users of that word) is even a good idea. So I never said you are a racist for believing in racial superiority.
If you would just answer one thing. One little thing. Please!
Why don't you get this semantics issue?
I really tried to explain it.