How out of touch is the left?

[chill98]

An interesting poll out of Europe, taken before Trump put in his Immigration EO.

[QUOTE from article]They suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread.

... Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed.[/QUOTE]

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration

[Shiranu]

So... because it's popular, it's right?


It could be 99% approval rating, but that doesn't mean that it is either ethical or logical.

[doorknob]

It doesn't make it right it just shows the view point of a particular population.

On the other hand we can't just act like everything is hunky dory and let just any old muslim from the middle east into our country. I'm sorry but they don't have a good track record.

I'm not saying don't take any one at all, but maybe take immigrants who are moving for valid reasons such as to escape abuse.

[Baruch]

So... because it's popular, it's right?


It could be 99% approval rating, but that doesn't mean that it is either ethical or logical.

Only in a democracy.  But you agree with me, it should be a dictatorship by the Brights, like Soros.

[Baruch]

It doesn't make it right it just shows the view point of a particular population.

On the other hand we can't just act like everything is hunky dory and let just any old muslim from the middle east into our country. I'm sorry but they don't have a good track record.

I'm not saying don't take any one at all, but maybe take immigrants who are moving for valid reasons such as to escape abuse.

Ah ... but poverty is abuse, so let all poor people move in.  Hope you have room for all the fakirs in India ;-)

[chill98]

So... because it's popular, it's right?

It could be 99% approval rating, but that doesn't mean that it is either ethical or logical.

See.. you are so entrenched in your opinion on ethical/logical that you can't separate Politics and Government from Philosophy(yours).

Below the graph is a broader breakdown.  It is every single age, edu level, and geographic - the majority.  Not one single area reverses the popular opinion on muslim immigration.

[Shiranu]

See.. you are so entrenched in your opinion on ethical/logical that you can't separate Politics and Government from Philosophy(yours).

Below the graph is a broader breakdown.  It is every single age, edu level, and geographic - the majority.  Not one single area reverses the popular opinion on muslim immigration.

Right. So again, just because something is popular doesn't make it ethical or logical.

When it comes to people's actual lives, I think sticking to morals is more important than playing popularity games. I find it odd for an atheist to be saying, "Forget what is moral or logical, just go with what everyone else thinks!", don't you?

[SGOS]

55%?  Sounds like the left is out of touch with the right, but I don't think 45/55% split is noteworthy.  Nor would it have anything to do with my opinions on the matter.

[chill98]

55%?  Sounds like the left is out of touch with the right, but I don't think 45/55% split is noteworthy.  Nor would it have anything to do with my opinions on the matter.

Well you would be right if it was actually a 55/45 split.  Maybe you should read the article. 

Or you could have just read the last line in the OP:

... Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed

It was 55/20.

[Baruch]

Right. So again, just because something is popular doesn't make it ethical or logical.

When it comes to people's actual lives, I think sticking to morals is more important than playing popularity games. I find it odd for an atheist to be saying, "Forget what is moral or logical, just go with what everyone else thinks!", don't you?

Again, you would make a good Catholic monk.  You have some dictator telling you the absolute moral vs immoral thing, and you have to obey.  No democracy in the Catholic Church.  Now if the Pope would just come out a Che Guevara ... you would be unable to resist ;-)  Unfortunately the Catholic Church suppressed liberation theology ... violently.

[Baruch]

Well you would be right if it was actually a 55/45 split.  Maybe you should read the article. 

Or you could have just read the last line in the OP:

... Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed

It was 55/20.

Yes, advocates of either end ... always claim 100% of the middle group.

[chill98]

Right. So again, just because something is popular doesn't make it ethical or logical.

When it comes to people's actual lives, I think sticking to morals is more important than playing popularity games. I find it odd for an atheist to be saying, "Forget what is moral or logical, just go with what everyone else thinks!", don't you?

What makes you think the 55% are not sticking to their morals/ethics?  And there is nothing illogical about a position of reduced immigration from a region at war with your own values.

And lets get real here.  You think its 'odd' no matter who it is if they don't agree with your ideas regardless of their atheism.  Thats how biased you are.   

You would make an excellent catholic monk; the pitiful thing is, you have no idea why.

[Shiranu]

What makes you think the 55% are not sticking to their morals/ethics?

Nothing does, nor have I ever implied I thought that way.

And there is nothing illogical about a position of reduced immigration from a region at war with your own values.

If you can prove you can pay taxes and follow our laws, the entire idea that you have to be approved to move here is illogical. The overwhelming majority of immigrants are not problem causers, so yes... the idea of reducing immigration from any region IS illogical.

And lets get real here.  You think its 'odd' no matter who it is if they don't agree with your ideas regardless of their atheism.

Yes, I find it odd that people think any one from the Middle East is a potential threat to their way of life who is going to institute Sharia law and detonate a car bomb in your backyard because there is simply no evidence that is true. What you said also does not actually address what I said, which is that you are telling me that because the majority think one way, I should therefor think that way as well.

You would make an excellent catholic monk; the pitiful thing is, you have no idea why.

Please don't copy Bauruch if you don't actually have a clue what he is talking about. In reference to what he said, it actually makes sense. For you, it just sounds fucking stupid.

[Munch]

Shiranu, seems anyone who disagrees with you is someone who "doesn't know what their talking about" these days. Funny how your the only correct one, must be lonely.

[SGOS]

Well you would be right if it was actually a 55/45 split.  Maybe you should read the article. 

Or you could have just read the last line in the OP:
... Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed
It was 55/20.

No, the split is 55/45.  You are breaking the group who is not in agreement with you into two separate categories, making a big deal out of the 25% that neither agree or disagree, and thereby marginalizing them as the excluded middle.  It's a statistical fallacy, because by definition, that 25% do not agree with you, while the other 20% outright oppose you.  The fact that some of them may not disagree is functionally irrelevant, because none of them agree with you.

I realize you didn't fuck with the statistics to create this fallacy.  You just fell prey to it.

As other objectors have pointed out, it's comforting to be in the majority, but it has no bearing on the accuracy of the conclusion.  So even if the poll puts you in a group with a 10% lead (or a 25% lead if you prefer), it doesn't make your position more moral or even more accurate.

Having said this, I still give weight to your position.  Europeans may have a better grip on the Islamic threat, because they have seen more of its effects during the most recent onslaught.  Or they may be reacting out of exaggerated fear.  I am sympathetic, however.  Some countries in Europe have been enjoying the freedom and advantages of a secular society much more than the US for many years.  Now they are in jeopardy of moving closer to the US or even ending up with less secularism than we have.

This saddens me.  I don't think loss of freedom is good for any society, and any religion which harbors large numbers of fanatics, is going to impact it's environment negatively IMO.