well, i'm happy to see you finally did some reading - and like i mentioned before, that wasn't even supposed to be a gotcha moment. it's just that your initially condescending attitude when i dismissed your post as non-sensical was such a stark contrast to the ridiculous first attempt to define legal positivism.
you will excuse me when i'm still a bit sceptical about your claim that this is what you meant initially, given your attitude change and the botched definition, but i will of course acknowledge that you managed to describe it in somewhat reasonable terms now that make at least a little more sense.


concerning the topic itself: the stance you claim in this particular case is not only understandable and easily justifiable, it's actually a pretty good representation of my own opinion on the matter - i just wish you were equally critical and nuanced when it comes to cases that concern constellations where the religion of the parties is switched...



'i'm not a racist, but...'

you really are the defender of the wicked, arent you

my descriptions are facts that these animals have created themselves with their behavior

btw i wonder why you marked the chicken and watermelon part?
and i do wonder whats your stance on their disgusting "i am just gonna show up somewhere and demand everything" attitude

This post was edited by ampoo on Apr 5 2019 05:05pm

pointing out your racist tropes, generalisations, and fearmongering is NOT a comment on someone's behaviour. i'm not defending anything, so stop lying, poo boy...

I've read about enough absurd cases of SJWing by authorities, particularly in Sweden and the UK, to consider it well imaginable that they would do that.
I guess I just assume that if there was something serious to bring up against the parents, then it would have been mentioned in the news report about this case.




Disagreed. A state being secular doesnt mean that all of its citizens, or even the majority, has to be secularized as well. Religion will matter in some way or another to most people, even in a secularized state.
A household's daily routine and worldview being shaped by religion will actually have a big influence on a foster child. Simply put, I dont like the idea of a christian/muslim child being place in a devout muslim/christian family, just as I wouldnt like a child from an atheist family being placed in a orthodox jewish family, or one of evangelical radicals.

Strong religious beliefs will always exert a strong influence, and the state being colorblind to this would mean turning a blind eye to reality itself.




Appealing to the ECJ or ECHR would have had two major issues: first, it would take forever. Going this route would have meant leaving the kids in an environment for years which is considered to be harmful by their parents. And second, this case would have been politicized in record time, putting political pressure from both directions on the courts ("Dont give in to islamophobes" vs "Dont give the right-wing populists fodder"), so that it would be kinda foolish to expect a completely sober and objective ruling from the courts.

Btw, our courts are constantly overruling the decisions of courts not under their authority - this happens in almost all cases where we grant asylum to political dissidents, investigative journalists and the like.






This is very interesting, and fits my own observation. Do you happen to have a source; or remember the reasons they gave for these trends?

I mean... part of it (but of course no full explanation) is probably a generational divide, with younger people being more prominent on social media, and also tending to receive their news on social media, while older people still prefer to read news either in printed newspapers or on the websites of news media.

fair enough!
glad we could at least somewhat sort this out.





Those people just tried to break through a secured border using violence, and were abusing women and children as a shield in their attempt. There is plenty of footage...

So calling them "invaders" and "violent trash/scum" is well justified in this case. And that the vast majority of them come from very backwards countries/cultures also cant really be disputed.
The "fried chicken and watermelons"-dog whistle was unnecessary, I'll agree with you on that one...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 5 2019 08:00pm

i generally agree with that sentiment, but here's my question:

- do we know the swedish authorities don't take such considerations into account when choosing foster families?
- do we even know if the chosen foster family was strict or even just practicing muslims? is goo-shill's description of the family ('fundamentalist muslims') corroborated by any source? the english article just mentions the family being of lebanese origin.

you people (in this case goo-shill, poo, dorothy, and you) are so quick to judge this situation in a negative way and defend the father, but what if it was a perfectly reasonable foster family that didn't bother the children at all with their personal beliefs?
what if the father is just a bigot and couldn't deal with the fact that they were of middle eastern origin, a feeling that will hardly be difficult to understand for someone like you...

Counterquestion: how is the swedish state supposed to actually know whether this lebanese family is devout or secularized, moderate or radical? As long as the mother isnt running around in a Burka, it is very difficult to know this for certain. And when we look at the high percentage with which muslim immigrants in western societies support things like sharia law, "not knowing the degree of religiousness of the foster family" is equivalent to putting up with a considerable risk of exposing the children to radical, harmful beliefs.

No matter how you look at it, this is just irresponsible.

come on, you can't genuinely be that ignorant. there are social workers doing check-ups on foster families. you're being vetted (pretty strictly actually in most cases) to become one in the first place. and while that system obviously can't be perfect, there's a lot of effort and resources involved to make sure that childrens' well-being is guaranteed - we're talking about sweden here, not america.

also, the 'knowing the degree of religiousness' was a question i asked YOU (and anyone who was so quick to judge this situation in favour of the father) - do YOU know how religious they really are, because it sure sounds like you're acting on pure speculation and consider shill's ('fundamentalist muslim') description credible, which is highly questionable given his record of spinning stories beyond recognition to further certain narratives.

sorry, but the amount (and degree) of negative assumptions you're making here to justify your bigoted stance is just ridiculous. no, it's not 'irresponsible' per se to give foster children to a family of lebanese (btw, just 54% of lebanese are muslims, over 40% are christian) origin - that's just based on completely irrational and prejudiced feelings. not that i'm surprised, but confronted with the sheer amount of things we just don't know about the situation, i would expect someone who constantly insists they are not a racist fearmonger to be a little more careful with making such radical claims...

Well, the sources given were:

1. An article from TASS - a russian newspaper (who are they going to side with here? Not saying they're going to lie, but if they were to cherry pick the information given, which one do you think they will give?)

2. An article from a local swedish newspaper that I haven't managed to find any information on. The website seems low budget, and the front page still has several articles dated from february. Not to mention that these headlines are almost exclusively about transgenders, migrants, and SD (Swedish Democrats, the alt-right party in Sweden). I'm ok with news sites having an ideological bias (they all do, it's inevitable), but the fact that they focus so much on these specific topics and that they're main headlines are these kind of random events, makes the journalism look kind of shady. I've found regarding their practices or credibility. Also note that the last sentence of the article is "Det är i dagsläget inte helt klarlagt varför Socialtjänsten tog barnen från pappan", which (according to Google translate) means "At present, it is not entirely clear why the Social Service took the children from the father". So they've basically made a long article where they only cite and give the viewpoint of the russian father's lawyer, and then they finish of their story with a line (well hidden, beneath the closing image of the article) that basically says "well, in reality, we have no clue of what's going on".

3. A tweet from the director of Ordo Iuris, a legal group that, according to its website, is commited to "courageously" defend pro-life activism, the traditional christian family structure of married heterosexual couples, etc, and is openly critical with the UN and the EU. Nothing wrong with that, but it's another source that comes from the same bias.

I'm not accusing any of these sources of lying. But I think we should submit the news we get to crtical thinking before we jump to conclusions. If you think these sources are valid enough, then that's fine. But I generally prefer remaining skeptic when there's such an open bias, and when I can't find credentials that vouch the validity of the sources.



Well, I simply don't think people's religion are the states business. It shouldn't be the state's concern if the family is christian, muslim or whatever.



Sweden isn't China. It's the EU. Be it Sweden or Romania, all of the member states are supposed to be free countries, so there is no reason for the courts to meddle in these affairs.



Not in english. It's a claim I've heard twice. Once in a debate on tv, between two internet anthropologists (with both of them agreeing on this). The other time was on an interview I read in EL MUNDO:

https://www.elmundo.es/papel/historias/2018/05/18/5afc0d9246163f87028b4637.html


Internet and the real world vote differently: the left sweeps networks but conservatives rule. Will it change?

The left is on Twitter, and Twitter is not representative: too many journalists. If you want to know what the right thinks, go to the comments section of the newspapers. The left does not win, and hence the frustration that causes it to feel underrepresented.


The interview doesn't go much deeper on the issue, but on the debate they did indeed consider the generational gap to be one of the main reasons for this behavior. There were other reasons, like institutionalized social culture being more progressive, so that it was easier for conservatives to express themselves in a comment section were there is more perceived anonymity, and that people tend to upvote critical comments (with the criticism usually coming more from the right on mainstream media), and upvoted comments tend to snowball.

This post was edited by zarkadon on Apr 6 2019 05:20am