View Poll Results: Highly Valued Cultural Exchange Versus Highly Scrutinized Creed For Citizenship

Voters
4. You may not vote on this poll
  • More cultural exchange and highly scrutinized creed for citizenship is better for a us future .

    2 50.00%
  • More cultural exchange and less scrutinized creed for citizenship is better for a us future .

    1 25.00%
  • Less cultural exchange and highly scrutinized creed for citizenship is better for a us future .

    1 25.00%
  • Less cultural exchange and less scrutinized creed for citizenship is better for a us future .

    1 25.00%
  • Current levels of cultural exchange and of scrutinized creed for citizenship are satisfactory .

    2 50.00%
  • More cultural exchange and less annual foreign citizenship is better for a us future .

    1 25.00%
  • More cultural exchange and more annual foreign citizenship is better for a us future .

    2 50.00%
  • Less cultural exchange and more annual foreign citizenship is better for a us future .

    1 25.00%
  • Less cultural exchange and less annual foreign citizenship is better for a us future .

    1 25.00%
  • Current levels of cultural exchange and of annual foreign citizenship is satisfactory .

    1 25.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
Thanks Tree7Thanks

Thread: Highly Valued Cultural Exchange Versus Highly Scrutinized Creed For Citizenship

  1. #11
    Moderator libertariat720's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,297
    Thanks
    1977

    From
    ohio
    That was pretty convoluted.

    My opinion is that if you immigrate here, you need to assimilate to our basic values under the constitution. Cultural exchange is great, but there is such a thing as a clash of cultures.

    More cultural exchange, and also highly scrutinized creed for citizenship.

  2. #12
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,536
    Thanks
    356

    From
    Yesod

    Guiding Purposeful Following

    " Guiding Purposeful Following "

    * Need Dell Wise *

    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    I suggest you familiarize yourself with the process of becoming a US citizen, applying for a work visa, or applying for refugee status. People who admit to intentions to overthrow the government are already barred, and have always been. Surely this isn't news to you.
    An intent to over throw the us government is a unique condition .

    A basic intent to expunge core tenets of creed from the us constitution by violating non aggression principles is a unique condition .

    A basic intent to expunge core tenets of creed from the us constitution to implement violations of non aggression principles is a unique condition .

    Which conditions satisfy conditions which disqualify a candidate from membership in a social civil agreement as one among other citizens ?


    * Threaded Twists *

    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Or did you mean that we should bar certain people who profess to obey "gods law" before all other laws?/quote]Does a sworn oath of faith in allegiance to " gods law " include a doctrine with tenets as creed which direct that non aggression principles be violated ?
    What of those individuals professing to a faith which expects violations of non aggression principles while pivoting upon this caveat , " ... do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior ... " ?

    Of course one would expect proof that individuals applying for citizenship understand the meaning of such a profession of faith and passive advocacy is an equal criteria with active advocacy .

    Which Moderate Mussel Men Aspect Imply Moderation Inn High Degree Moderation ?


    * Tight Lids *


    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    How to you intend to prove that people are being deceitful? Or is your plan to not even bother talking to them, and just bar them from entry based on religious affiliation?
    First , it could be required to establish that a doctrine of faith includes tenets of creed that direct the violation of non aggression principles .

    Second , it could be required to establish the allegiance to faith that a doctrine be implemented which includes tenets of creed that direct the violation of non aggression principles .

    Is it fair to exclude individuals from citizenship who passively advocate for violations of non aggression principles but contest that they would not take such actions ?

    Which Moderate Mussel Men Aspect Imply Moderation Inn High Degree Moderation ?

  3. #13
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    8,248
    Thanks
    8107

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    An intent to over throw the us government is a unique condition .
    Ok.

    A basic intent to expunge core tenets of creed from the us constitution by violating non aggression principles is a unique condition .

    A basic intent to expunge core tenets of creed from the us constitution to implement violations of non aggression principles is a unique condition .
    Both of them are unique? Because they sound like they are pretty much the same thing only with a slight twist at the end. And I'm a little curious about these non-agression principles. Do US wars of aggression against countries like Iraq and Vietnam count as a violation of non-agression principles? How sacred are these "non-agression principles" if they are regularly violated by the most powerful country in the history of the world every few years?

    Which conditions satisfy conditions which disqualify a candidate from membership in a social civil agreement as one among other citizens ?
    Huh?

    * Threaded Twists *


    What of those individuals professing to a faith which expects violations of non aggression principles while pivoting upon this caveat , " ... do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior ... " ?

    Of course one would expect proof that individuals applying for citizenship understand the meaning of such a profession of faith and passive advocacy is an equal criteria with active advocacy .

    Which Moderate Mussel Men Aspect Imply Moderation Inn High Degree Moderation ?

    What of those individuals professing to a faith that worships a God that assisted in the genocide of the people of Jericho, Heshbon, Bashan, as well as assisted them in killing 500,000 of their fellow Israelites, among many other mass killings? All the Abrahamic religions worship the God that did this (according to legend). Should we greet them all with suspicion? Are people passively advocating genocide when they profess to be Christian or Jewish? What about Biblical violation of non-agression principles?

    Is it also possible that people, living in a free society, come to abandon all of (or maybe most of, as support for wars of aggression might be an echo of this Biblical pro-aggression principle) the more tyrannical vestiges of their religion, having no use for them. Evangelical Christians often portray themselves engaged in a war against our degenerate sexualized culture, and on a holy mission to purify the world. Thanks to the benefits of freedom and democracy though, they are far more impotent than they used to be. There are no longer witch trials nor executions for heresy.

    * Tight Lids *

    First , it could be required to establish that a doctrine of faith includes tenets of creed that direct the violation of non aggression principles .

    Second , it could be required to establish the allegiance to faith that a doctrine be implemented which includes tenets of creed that direct the violation of non aggression principles .

    Is it fair to exclude individuals from citizenship who passively advocate for violations of non aggression principles but contest that they would not take such actions ?

    Which Moderate Mussel Men Aspect Imply Moderation Inn High Degree Moderation ?
    Your so called "non-aggression principles" seem a lot like a sham cover under which you can excuse your own violations of those principles. Refusing refuge, refusing rights to freedom of expression, concocting ideological tripwire tests over religious verses that people may not even be aware of—all of it—seems like a sneaky way to perpetuate aggression and war against people who are largely victims of US aggression and meddling already.

    It is passive advocacy for aggression.

  4. #14
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,536
    Thanks
    356

    From
    Yesod

    Reiterating Included Obvious Transcendent Theme

    " Reiterating Included Obvious Transcendent Theme "

    * Reading Writings Seams Sames *

    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    " Guiding Purposeful Following " * Need Dell Wise *
    An intent to over throw the us government is a unique condition .
    A basic intent to expunge core tenets of creed from the us constitution by violating non aggression principles is a unique condition .
    A basic intent to expunge core tenets of creed from the us constitution to implement violations of non aggression principles is a unique condition .
    Ok. Both of them are unique? Because they sound like they are pretty much the same thing only with a slight twist at the end.
    All three represent unique creeds .

    Should an adherent for any of those creeds be included in a category of individuals whose core tenet of creed for their social civil contract is non aggression principles ?


    * Macrocosm Microcosm Inner Constructions *

    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    And I'm a little curious about these non-aggression principles. Do US wars of aggression against countries like Iraq and Vietnam count as a violation of non-aggression principles? How sacred are these "non-aggression principles" if they are regularly violated by the most powerful country in the history of the world every few years?
    Those applying the term natural law as some norm ( natural rights , sic . ) for human behavior based upon an inalienable entitlement from psychopomps are forwarding inanity .

    Alternatively , the term natural law may be inferred from events within nature , which offers many perspectives including moral relativism with respect to good versus evil .

    Given the natural freedoms others may exercise , one may improve their odds for survival by organizing into collectives as greater individuals .

    Even though citizen members enter into a social civil contract based in non aggression principles for public policy , all external individuals may remain subject to the fates of natural freedom .

    One may suppose citizens with a social civil contract founded upon non aggression principles may implement foreign policy based upon non aggression principles however , from natural freedoms , it is not a necessity to do so .

    At issue now is whether a creed founded upon aggression principles , along with rhetoric such as " ... do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior ... " should be extended membership in a social civil contract based upon non aggression principles .


    * Clarification Vapors *

    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Huh?
    What of those individuals professing to a faith that worships a God that assisted in the genocide of the people of Jericho, Heshbon, Bashan, as well as assisted them in killing 500,000 of their fellow Israelites, among many other mass killings? All the Abrahamic religions worship the God that did this (according to legend). Should we greet them all with suspicion? Are people passively advocating genocide when they profess to be Christian or Jewish? What about Biblical violation of non-agression principles?
    It would be presumed by now that an answer to the torahnism question would have been answered , which is that the legal system of the torah does not apply outside of isreal and there is not a presumption for aggression to establish it elsewhere .

    Any pseudo christian theonomist is welcome to emigrate to israel if they wish to practice torahnism , as they purport not one letter of its law shall pass away ; however , they should be ready to crucify jesus again for heresy against their nomian legal system .


    * Avoiding Electively Worse *

    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Your so called "non-aggression principles" seem a lot like a sham cover under which you can excuse your own violations of those principles. Refusing refuge, refusing rights to freedom of expression, concocting ideological tripwire tests over religious verses that people may not even be aware of—all of it—seems like a sneaky way to perpetuate aggression and war against people who are largely victims of US aggression and meddling already.

    It is passive advocacy for aggression.
    You seem to be forgetting which are the bigots , the supremacists , those intolerant of others , those advocating aggression principles against individualism .

    One should evaluate doctrines to determine whether they are consistent with non aggression principles , and consequently evaluate the motivations of adherents for those doctrines .

    WHAT?S WRONG WITH SLAVERY AND RAPE? ? Catholic League
    Two weeks ago today, a professor from Georgetown University publicly rose to the defense of slavery and rape, and not a single major media outlet—with the exception of a blogger on the Washington Post website and a brief posting on foxnews.com—has said a word about it. The absence of outrage is not hard to figure out: Jonathan Brown’s defense was limited to Islam.

    Brown, a convert to Islam, holds an endowed chair in Islamic studies at Georgetown. The Jesuit-run institution has a wealthy benefactor in Saudi Arabia, a nation which bans Christianity. How sweet.

    What did Georgetown get from this arrangement? Money, and a lot of it. Twelve years ago, Saudi Arabia wrote a check to the Jesuit-run institution for $20 million; it went to support the school’s Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, run by Brown. And what did Saudi Arabia get from this peculiar “understanding”? Legitimacy.

    Speaking of which, Brown went on to say that non-consensual sex—it’s called rape—is okay with him, at least if the offenders are adherents to Islam.

    Continuing his defense of rape, Brown criticized Americans for making a big deal about individual rights.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_A.C._Brown


    * Confusing Compulsion Tendencies *

    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Is it also possible that people, living in a free society, come to abandon all of (or maybe most of, as support for wars of aggression might be an echo of this Biblical pro-aggression principle) the more tyrannical vestiges of their religion, having no use for them. Evangelical Christians often portray themselves engaged in a war against our degenerate sexualized culture, and on a holy mission to purify the world. Thanks to the benefits of freedom and democracy though, they are far more impotent than they used to be. There are no longer witch trials nor executions for heresy.
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 28th February 2017 at 07:28 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Second Scottish independence vote 'highly likely'
    By Babba in forum Europe & Russia
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 3rd July 2016, 03:22 AM
  2. 7 Habits of Highly Frugal People
    By sparty in forum Economics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12th July 2012, 09:41 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed