Dutch FM: ''Peaceful diverse societies are non-existent''

[Kowani]

It's true.

What’s true, the Dutch FM’s claim?

[The Anime Army]

It's true.

What’s true, the Dutch FM’s claim?

Indeed my brother.

[The South Falls]

This is not debate. Why?

Because i believe it is true. Have faith.

Is this satire? You are not god, explain your reasons. Or, prove to me you can walk on water. And give me fish. And bread.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

This is not debate. Why?

Because i believe it is true. Have faith.

This isn't how you debate. You have to explain why you think the PM is correct.

[The Anime Army]

Because i believe it is true. Have faith.

This isn't how you debate. You have to explain why you think the PM is correct.

Matthew 17:20 ►

He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

[El-Amin Caliphate]

This isn't how you debate. You have to explain why you think the PM is correct.

Matthew 17:20 ►

He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Now you're threadjacking. Explain to us why you believe that the Dutch FM is correct.

[The Anime Army]

Matthew 17:20 ►

He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Now you're threadjacking. Explain to us why you believe that the Dutch PM is correct.

I don't think i need to explain myself. I am just expressing my beliefs about this situation.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Now you're threadjacking. Explain to us why you believe that the Dutch PM is correct.

I don't think i need to explain myself. I am just expressing my beliefs about this situation.

Well this part of the nationstates forums is the debate section, so expect a debate.
Yes, technically you could just state your opinion and leave, but that's not how stuff works around here usually.

[The Anime Army]

I don't think i need to explain myself. I am just expressing my beliefs about this situation.

Well this part of the nationstates forums is the debate section, so expect a debate.
Yes, technically you could just state your opinion and leave, but that's not how stuff works around here usually.

True. Still, no one is obligated to debate anyone here.

[Kowani]

Well this part of the nationstates forums is the debate section, so expect a debate.
Yes, technically you could just state your opinion and leave, but that's not how stuff works around here usually.

True. Still, no one is obligated to debate anyone here.

I vote we just ignore this kind of stupidity, then.

[The South Falls]

Well this part of the nationstates forums is the debate section, so expect a debate.
Yes, technically you could just state your opinion and leave, but that's not how stuff works around here usually.

True. Still, no one is obligated to debate anyone here.

You are not god. That passage is talking about god.

[UniversalCommons]

One day I walked into court and told the judge it is true because I believe it. It is not open to debate. Can you prove your religion forbids it. In chapter 4 section 3 of the book it says this. The judge, I do not believe it and I am the judge, so I can say it means something else. Under whose authority. Why the government of course. My lawyer says otherwise and she has read the governments argument. The judge, she is your lawyer, so she interprets the law not you. She can argue for you, but you cannot argue for yourself. She has been assigned to you, would you like to have your lawyer removed. Yes, I would like to have my lawyer removed. Alright, she is dismissed. Show me the section in your book. I cannot find this section. I can find section 3 chapter 4, but it does not state what I believed. I must have looked in the wrong version of the book. Yes, I have an older version from 1555 which is more accurate. The judge, that book is not here and I must refer to the standard version because it is the one that is acceptable under the law. You are wrong and I have sentenced you because you have not proven anything. What have you sentenced to me. The judge, go to the next room, the sentencer is in the next room, I do not do the sentencing, I merely assign you to be sentenced... Because I believe it only goes so far.

[Len Hyet]

One day I walked into court and told the judge it is true because I believe it. It is not open to debate. Can you prove your religion forbids it. In chapter 4 section 3 of the book it says this. The judge, I do not believe it and I am the judge, so I can say it means something else. Under whose authority. Why the government of course. My lawyer says otherwise and she has read the governments argument. The judge, she is your lawyer, so she interprets the law not you. She can argue for you, but you cannot argue for yourself. She has been assigned to you, would you like to have your lawyer removed. Yes, I would like to have my lawyer removed. Alright, she is dismissed. Show me the section in your book. I cannot find this section. I can find section 3 chapter 4, but it does not state what I believed. I must have looked in the wrong version of the book. Yes, I have an older version from 1555 which is more accurate. The judge, that book is not here and I must refer to the standard version because it is the one that is acceptable under the law. You are wrong and I have sentenced you because you have not proven anything. What have you sentenced to me. The judge, go to the next room, the sentencer is in the next room, I do not do the sentencing, I merely assign you to be sentenced... Because I believe it only goes so far.

I lack a reaction image with sufficient wat, so please accept this video instead.

[Ifreann]

One day I walked into court and told the judge it is true because I believe it. It is not open to debate. Can you prove your religion forbids it. In chapter 4 section 3 of the book it says this. The judge, I do not believe it and I am the judge, so I can say it means something else. Under whose authority. Why the government of course. My lawyer says otherwise and she has read the governments argument. The judge, she is your lawyer, so she interprets the law not you. She can argue for you, but you cannot argue for yourself. She has been assigned to you, would you like to have your lawyer removed. Yes, I would like to have my lawyer removed. Alright, she is dismissed. Show me the section in your book. I cannot find this section. I can find section 3 chapter 4, but it does not state what I believed. I must have looked in the wrong version of the book. Yes, I have an older version from 1555 which is more accurate. The judge, that book is not here and I must refer to the standard version because it is the one that is acceptable under the law. You are wrong and I have sentenced you because you have not proven anything. What have you sentenced to me. The judge, go to the next room, the sentencer is in the next room, I do not do the sentencing, I merely assign you to be sentenced... Because I believe it only goes so far.

I lack a reaction image with sufficient wat, so please accept this video instead.

One does not simply wat into Mordor.

[Federal Syndicalist States]

I do think the State should be monocultural, ie laicite, but the private life can be diverse so to speak. In any case, conflict is part of human nature and the state should facilitate the means to mediate said confrontations.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I do think the State should be monocultural, ie laicite, but the private life can be diverse so to speak. In any case, conflict is part of human nature and the state should facilitate the means to mediate said confrontations.

I don't see how monocultural is the same thing as secular. Or am I completely getting the wrong end of the stick?

[Federal Syndicalist States]

I do think the State should be monocultural, ie laicite, but the private life can be diverse so to speak. In any case, conflict is part of human nature and the state should facilitate the means to mediate said confrontations.

I don't see how monocultural is the same thing as secular.

That's why I said laicite in particular.

[Amrasia]

Does Indonesia count as a “peaceful diverse society”?
It has a thousand of ethnics living together (including the foreign ones such as chinese, indian etc)
I mean.. there have been no discriminative law or anything against those who are different than the native (apart from the massacre in the 60s)

[Federal Syndicalist States]

Does Indonesia count as a “peaceful diverse society”?
It has a thousand of ethnics living together (including the foreign ones such as chinese, indian etc)
I mean.. there have been no discriminative law or anything against those who are different than the native (apart from the massacre in the 60s)

I have the feeling the 60s massacre would be inmediatly hailed as an example why it's not peaceful.

[Herskerstad]

Does Indonesia count as a “peaceful diverse society”?
It has a thousand of ethnics living together (including the foreign ones such as chinese, indian etc)
I mean.. there have been no discriminative law or anything against those who are different than the native (apart from the massacre in the 60s)

They lost the chance for that with the east Timor war. That said, while relatively peaceful nowadays, I'd not classify it as a harmonious society in the least. Certainly not now that Islamists are alarmingly climbing the ranks.

[Painisia]

What is the CDA`s stance on immigration? Are they liberal towards immigration despite being a Christian Democratic Party?

[Amrasia]

Does Indonesia count as a “peaceful diverse society”?
It has a thousand of ethnics living together (including the foreign ones such as chinese, indian etc)
I mean.. there have been no discriminative law or anything against those who are different than the native (apart from the massacre in the 60s)

They lost the chance for that with the east Timor war. That said, while relatively peaceful nowadays, I'd not classify it as a harmonious society in the least. Certainly not now that Islamists are alarmingly climbing the ranks.

I thought that was only a territorial dispute.
Well technically Indonesia is non-discriminative towards all ethnics and religions, at least.
But yes a bit of racism against Chinese is on rising as well, caused by propagandas and provocative messages by those Islamists who are now trying to gain power by using a total racist campaign.

[Phoenicaea]

I don't see how monocultural is the same thing as secular.

That's why I said laicite in particular.

I agree.

then, where laicism, as a mere hypothesis, can not be spread because of culture, we have to see "pagan" mind as a way of progress (instead of rigid monoteism).

in rome, the base concept was.. you shoul not call your god as the only one, it may be best still not "alone"