• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Islam belong in Germany?

ddt said:
Bollocks. Utter BS. All Western-European states have immigrant populations of comparable size, most of those immigrants being Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East (and Pakistan in the case of the UK). Sort this table and you'll see that France, Switzerland and the Netherlands - just to name three - have percentage-wise more Muslims than Germany.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur.

I said nothing and meant nothing about the relative sizes of the Muslim populations of any countries or group of countries. Your attempt to identify the exact nature of my particultar thought crime du jour has failed.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
I don't like the phrase "Islam belongs to Germany" ("der Islam gehört zu Deutschland" - the translation is good). I think it grew out of rejecting the negation: "Islam doesn't belong to Germany".
Click to expand...


Well, you should mention that in this case Kauder negates the positive statement made by former president Wulff (also a Merkel ally). Kauder is an attack dog of the Christian Democrats and his statement, I think, serves the purpose of binding the Islamophobe crowd, which unlike in most European countries still not has a relevant party in Germany, to the CDU.

"Rechts von mir ist nur die Wand". ;)
 
Toontown said:
Non-sequitur.

I said nothing and meant nothing about the relative sizes of the Muslim populations of any countries or group of countries. Your attempt to identify the exact nature of my particultar thought crime du jour has failed.
Click to expand...

what did you mean then? i didnt udnderstand your post
 
Ryokan said:
Most of the Muslims in Germany are Turkish foreign labourers, or their descendents, who were invited to come to Germany and work in the 70s.
Click to expand...
.
And their kids are anchor babies, just like here. :)
 
Toontown said:
Non-sequitur.

I said nothing and meant nothing about the relative sizes of the Muslim populations of any countries or group of countries. Your attempt to identify the exact nature of my particultar thought crime du jour has failed.
Click to expand...

So what did you mean? I awfully looked like what others read into it. And why don't you just explain what you meant so we can move on with the discussion instead of keep hammering on this point.
 
ANTPogo said:
Even if you're going strictly by the original wording of Godwin's Law, angrysoba's post is entirely correct.
Click to expand...
I go by The longer an internet discussion continues, the greater the chances that some poster will make a comparison to Nazis.

The first post did not make the discussion grow longer, and no poster's coments were compared to Nazis in the OP.
 
crimresearch said:
The first post did not make the discussion grow longer
Click to expand...

It's not that a mention of Nazis makes the thread longer, it's that a longer a thread goes on, the more likely it is that someone will mention Nazis.

By mentioning Nazis in the first post (especially regarding a news story that has nothing to do with the Nazis), the OP basically crossed the finish line before the starting gun even went off.

and no poster's coments were compared to Nazis in the OP.
Click to expand...

Your formulation didn't say that a poster's comments will be compared to Nazis. It said that some poster will make a comparison to Nazis. Which is exactly what the OP did.

Ergo, this thread was Godwinned in its very first post.
 
ANTPogo said:
It's not that a mention of Nazis makes the thread longer, it's that a longer a thread goes on, the more likely it is that someone will mention Nazis.

By mentioning Nazis in the first post (especially regarding a news story that has nothing to do with the Nazis), the OP basically crossed the finish line before the starting gun even went off.



Your formulation didn't say that a poster's comments will be compared to Nazis. It said that some poster will make a comparison to Nazis. Which is exactly what the OP did.

Ergo, this thread was Godwinned in its very first post.
Click to expand...
There was no comparison to Nazi's at all. A photo isn't a comparison, it is documentation.
And at 1 post, a thread isn't longer than anything except zero.

So of the 2 criteria that Godwin himself set, neither is present. Merely referring to the history of that period isn't Godwinning.

I'm missing your point and reluctant to jump to conclusions... is the OP comparing 'Merkel's ally' to Nazis? Or someone else?
 
crimresearch said:
There was no comparison to Nazi's at all. A photo isn't a comparison, it is documentation.
Click to expand...

Only if you refuse to look at the context. The OP didn't post it as a non-sequitur, after all.

And at 1 post, a thread isn't longer than anything except zero.
Click to expand...

No, because the conditions Mike Godwin set on length was an upper bound, not a lower bound. He was making a faux statistical statement about how Nazis tend to get mentioned in internet discussions, to make the point that the overuse of invalid Nazi comparisons robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

And saying how much the Nazis liked Islam in a thread about how a modern German politician thinks Islam has no place in modern Germany is an invalid comparison.

I'm missing your point and reluctant to jump to conclusions... is the OP comparing 'Merkel's ally' to Nazis? Or someone else?
Click to expand...

He's comparing Islam to Naziism. Basically, he's trying to say that Germans might not think Islam is a part of German identity these days, but back when they were Nazis they wholeheartedly embraced Islam. Therefore, Merkel's ally is right to say Islam does not belong in Germany, because the Nazis liked Islam, and modern Germany has rejected everything associated with the Nazis.

EDIT: It's basically just a reductio ad Hitlerum. "So what if he doesn't like Islam. You know who did like Islam? Hitler."
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
Only if you refuse to look at the context. The OP didn't post it as a non-sequitur, after all.



No, because the conditions Mike Godwin set on length was an upper bound, not a lower bound. He was making a faux statistical statement about how Nazis tend to get mentioned in internet discussions, to make the point that the overuse of invalid Nazi comparisons robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

And saying how much the Nazis liked Islam in a thread about how a modern German politician thinks Islam has no place in modern Germany is an invalid comparison.



He's comparing Islam to Naziism. Basically, he's trying to say that Germans might not think Islam is a part of German identity these days, but back when they were Nazis they wholeheartedly embraced Islam. Therefore, Merkel's ally is right to say Islam does not belong in Germany, because the Nazis liked Islam, and modern Germany has rejected everything associated with the Nazis.

EDIT: It's basically just a reductio ad Hitlerum. "So what if he doesn't like Islam. You know who did like Islam? Hitler."
Click to expand...
OK, and thanks for the further explanation... I can see that, although it wasn't what I took away from the OP. For me, Nazis, and the Grand Mufti's Islam are spokes on the same wheel.

But having taken your point, I'll agree with your agreement with angry soba.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
The only person I "compared" to a Nazi was wearing the uniform. :)
Click to expand...

:confused:

You compared Volker Kauder, head of the CDU/CSU's parliamentary party, with Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführer SS. Himmler is the only one in the pictures in your OP wearing a uniform.
 
epepke said:
,,,

Germany does have a genocidal, xenophobic, and nationally/culturally superior nature. This has been going along for a hell of a long time. Whether this is eternal or not remains to be seen, but it is perverse to assert that there is any evidence that this will end any time soon.

,,,

Now, the Germans are by no means the only genocidal culture. Probably every culture is genocidal; it is certainly difficult to think of one that is not.

,,,
Click to expand...

Here is the offending statement:

"Islam is not part of our tradition and identity in Germany and so does not belong in Germany," Volker Kauder, head of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives in parliament, told the Passauer Neue Presse.

But Muslims do belong in Germany. As state citizens, of course, they enjoy their full rights," he added."

I see nothing wrong with the statement. It is a simple statement of fact. "Islam" is not, in fact, a part of German culture and tradition. And there is nothing wrong with a country, culture, religion, or other group defining itself in terms of what it is and is not. OTC, it is plain common sense to include what is deemed good and exclude what is deemed inimical, if any group is to exist as such at all.

I certainly do not see Muslims, for example, being reticent to define themselves quite exclusively in terms of what they are and are not.

Would it be a thought crime if, for example, a UK politician were to state that fascism is not a part of British culture and tradition?

What about anarchy? Would it be a thought crime for a country to exclude anarchy from it's culture and tradition?

So why pick on the Germans? Define the thought crime which has been committed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom