Not that you are able to back yourself on your site for the things you say...

[Arya Quinn]

I'm thinking Star Trek fan fiction.

Pon Far, the thing from Star Trek that Vulcans experience that was first shown in the episode "Amok Time" (the one where Kirk and Spock fight each other):



It can put Vulcans into this trance-like state (hence why Spock is kicking the shit out of Kirk) and according to Star Trek lore, there are only a few things that can break this trance.
One being that the Vulcan actually mates
Two being the equivalent to a broken heart. 

In the episode, where Spock seemingly kills Kirk he breaks out of the trance. When he sees that Jim is alive, he smiles. He actually has this big cheesy grin on his face! What does that tell you?

[Al Swearegen]

And the bigot draws the wrong conclusions on the wrong numbers, seeing only what he wants to see. Well done, Al. From intellectually dishonest to a bigot in a matter of months. You've actually become toxic.

Probably not what you had in mind, eh?

Am neither.
You seem every bit the hypocrite though. Your answer to your problems in your country is to minimise them or dismiss them completely and wave them away as of no consequence. However if someone else has the gall to face up to those same issues and prevent them being a problem in their own country, or in another country, and is prepared to look a preventative measures you call them a bigot.

Why is all the international press picking on poor old Sweden? Why are they citing the problems in your rock concerts and swimming pools?  Why are they calling Sweden the rape capital of the world?

Is it because:

A) So many silly Swedish women make too much of a fuss, lie about their rapes and sexual assaults, so that now international media has it and is making a big fuss over nothing?

B) The international press got together and talked about which European country they would pick on, and all agreed Sweden was the best on to pick on, and "make up numbers"  on, and create stories out of whole cloth.

C) there is a problem... A big problem.  A problem so big that other countries are commenting on it. These issues are not going away, and like the groping guards and don't grope brackets, are not even close to being adequately addressed. You specifically dismiss and minimise these things and metaphorically thumb your nose to the victims (your country's women and children), when you do this.
Yet you have the mindblowing temerity and hypocrisy criticising opinions on better border control and security, and call that bigoted.

I know buzzwords like bigotry are so often thrown around these days as to lose much of their meaning but who AM I supposedly bigoted towards?

To help you along:
I like moderate Muslims. Whilst some Christians can go full fire brimstone nihilistic Westboro Baptist most don't. Most Muslims don't either. Most will not rape, serial assault women or children from their host country and are not wanting to commit terrorist acts against their new home.

I have Muslim friends who are moderate Muslims. Different beliefs to me and eat different foods. They don't drink and have different life experience and perspectives.  They are not radicalised and do not support the actions of those that are. Here is another thing, whilst none of them like Trump (or wish to listen to anything he has to say), when Trump is taken out of the equation, and the points of border control and temporary freezes to improve vetting is bought up, they are very receptive to this. They do not like or wish Radicalised Muslim extremists here. They are glad to be away from them.

I have good reason to suspect the FBI and State Department and Department of Justice is dropping the ball with their vetting processes. They have admitted that they often are unable to check records against any database and so if presented a passport they have little way of confirming the legitimacy of the person coming through. We have been told that ISIS Is planting it's members in with refugees. We know that increase of Muslim immigration has increased attacks against host countries.  We know that a proclaim Muslim may indeed by a moderate law abiding Muslim OR may be radicalised.

So take a run up and telling me what bigotry I have. I will give you a hint it can't be against Muslims, because I have been so clear, that only a moron would not get that I have no issue with the majority of Muslims, who are law abiding moderate and a boon to any society they live in. Now go ahead.

['andersom']

The only way to avoid radicalisation by IS in a country is to shut it down totally watertight.

All borders completely closed, all of the internet closed, all access to non controlled books and papers etc denied. All conversations monitored. Bit inspired by the way Romania and the GDR handled things before their fall.

The moment that happens, IS will have truly won with their fear mongering.

[odeon]

"I have friends who are..."

It's the classic defence of a bigot, no matter what kind of bigotry that is being discussed, The problem is that there is always an arbitrary "but", a seemingly reasonable exception or limitation to protect the known from the unknown. It's about playing on people's fears and It's how a failed painter from Austria brought about the Holocaust.

If your friends had lived somewhere else and your country had implemented the Trump campaign book, would you have accepted that they were not let in when they wanted to visit you?

Hyke is right. The only way to stop the radical Muslims from entering is to stop everyone from entering. It's completely unreasonable, of course, and completely mad, but there is a logic to it that you and Trump lack. You'd then only have to deal with the madmen already inside the country, not that it has been going brilliantly so far, but still. Trump would never accept it, though, because he is all about playing on people's fears and stopping everyone would be too obviously irrational.

[Al Swearegen]

The only way to avoid radicalisation by IS in a country is to shut it down totally watertight.

All borders completely closed, all of the internet closed, all access to non controlled books and papers etc denied. All conversations monitored. Bit inspired by the way Romania and the GDR handled things before their fall.

The moment that happens, IS will have truly won with their fear mongering.

The only way to stop schoolyard bullying at school is to have a teacher follow each student at every moment they are at school. So being that this is impractical and silly, ought anything else be considered and why?

Maybe teaching kids how to be resilient, to physically defend themselves, to keep an eye on the ones likely to bully and likely to be picked on, to have a zero tolerance to bullying, to have safe areas at the school and try to be approachable for kids and to listen to them, may work.

It is a sort of thinking to say, there is no measure to fix the problem completely and so nothing should be done at all.

The only way to avoid radicalisation by IS in a country is to shut it down totally watertight.

Or another option is to look at what may be able to be done rather than not address this issue at all. In Australia we have Detention Centres. In America Trump had suggested that their vetting system to filter good from bad was not working and he wish to place a freeze on immigration until they corrected the vetting systems. It is similar to the place them in Detention Centres until we can clear them. It is looking at options.

I believe that looking at options to address the problem is good. I have said as an idea, I support that. There are other places Muslims can immigrate to until the freeze is lifted and America gets its processes right (Sweden for example). Once the freeze is lifted and the vetting process improved the Americans will get good moderate Muslims and the rest will probably end up in Sweden hanging out in rock concerts or swimming pools.

As to whether this idea COULD be implemented and whether it would (or whether it would be further developed, reimagined, revamped or abandoned) I don't know, I expect from looking at the Donald trump homepage that he has further developed this idea. But I am interested in theory how he may try and get around practical limitations. In the vetting process is not working how would he get it better? How much better would he need to get it? How would he know? (How would he know how many radicalised extremists get through and how would he know if they reduce in number an by how much?), How would he ascertain the person coming in was Muslim if they said otherwise?

Thankfully I am not a part of the project I am simply commenting on an idea that was mentioned, that I agree with in principle.

[Al Swearegen]

"I have friends who are..."

It's the classic defence of a bigot, no matter what kind of bigotry that is being discussed, The problem is that there is always an arbitrary "but", a seemingly reasonable exception or limitation to protect the known from the unknown. It's about playing on people's fears and It's how a failed painter from Austria brought about the Holocaust.

If your friends had lived somewhere else and your country had implemented the Trump campaign book, would you have accepted that they were not let in when they wanted to visit you?

Hyke is right. The only way to stop the radical Muslims from entering is to stop everyone from entering. It's completely unreasonable, of course, and completely mad, but there is a logic to it that you and Trump lack. You'd then only have to deal with the madmen already inside the country, not that it has been going brilliantly so far, but still. Trump would never accept it, though, because he is all about playing on people's fears and stopping everyone would be too obviously irrational.

Odeon I am not defending against a bigotry I do not have and I would this makes your slimy little point rather moot.
Again you talk about the Trump campaign book. Any reason? No seriously, any at all? As I have not taken a position on the Trump campaign book, why are you mentioning it to me?

How is Hyke right? I have not thought for a moment that saying to people trying to immigrate "Halt, are you Muslim?" Is going to stop every Muslim immigrant. If ISIS is going to lie about their reasons for immigrating and disavow being a part of ISIS then I should imagine they would disavow being Muslims as well, right? The fact that "I" bought up many impracticalities that "I" could see many times, makes it a little strange to see you say that "I" thought it would stop all Muslim immigrants. In fact it would look completely disingenuous of YOU. Hyke is interjecting in a callout she has not followed closely but you have.

I would have to deal with Madmen in America would I? Any reason I may have to? I think if the FBI has nearly 1000 active US Based Islamic Extremists then they are probably not doing a great job and any freeze may allow them to dedicate more time to getting on top of these. Me? No I can agree in principle with an idea though. That idea was NOT the campaign book was it Odeon?

As for protecting from the unknown. Please tell me this lady has a poor insight into the danger of Islamic extremists moving into countries as a form of hijrah



Tell me that you know better than she and that this is an unknown danger.

Are you right or is simply an uneducated, ignorant or stupid woman who doesn't know what she is talking about ?

Perhaps this lady is no expert either? In fact perhaps you know better and more expertly than her, right?





Come on tell me about this unknown threat?

The problem here is that pointing out a problem is not bigotry. The Emperor has no clothes and you can (like you do with your internationally headlined "Rape Capital of the world" AND swimming pool and rock concert crisises) dismiss and minimise an issue and believe the Emperor is wearing the finest silk.

If we can be rational and logical enough to conclude that there is a real problem, that is a great start.
If you can then appreciate that with an issue like this there cannot be a complete eradication of the problem, then we can look at how to reduce the problem.

From this more enlightened standpoint, we can throw things out there as things to consider in principle. I think fixing vetting systems sounds fine to me. Preventing Muslim immigrants temporarily from coming in until these vetting system are fixed sounds extremely reasonable.

That does not prevent any Muslims from coming in forever and nor does it mean that Muslim immigrants cannot immigrate in a different country in the meantime. There is NO constitution obligation that ANYONE HAS to have the right to immigrate to a country. It is a privilege.
In the case of a Muslim Immigrant freeze, it would be an inconvenience.

It is like getting a travel warning not to go to a country. Yes you had your hopes dashed. Yes it means that despite all your organising and expectation you have to delay but that is life. So you wait or make plans to go somewhere else instead or in the meantime.

None of this is bigotry. You are making no sense. Please start making sense.

[odeon]

Again, stop acting like one and I will stop calling you one. It's not about admitting the sheer impracticality of Trump's campaign book re Muslims and it never was, it is about agreeing with the moronic and bigoted idea in the first place, rather than admitting that yeah, stopping people from buying their weapons in the first place might stand a better chance. But you'd never admit it, would you? Not now, when you have invested so much in the bigotry, long-winded post after long-winded post.

Sad.

[Al Swearegen]

Again, stop acting like one and I will stop calling you one. It's not about admitting the sheer impracticality of Trump's campaign book re Muslims and it never was, it is about agreeing with the moronic and bigoted idea in the first place, rather than admitting that yeah, stopping people from buying their weapons in the first place might stand a better chance. But you'd never admit it, would you? Not now, when you have invested so much in the bigotry, long-winded post after long-winded post.

Sad.

Okay what campaign book are you talking about to be perfectly clear? Is it the website which gives a new position on immigration that I have not vouched a position on and if so why are you mentioning it?

['andersom']

The only way to avoid radicalisation by IS in a country is to shut it down totally watertight.

All borders completely closed, all of the internet closed, all access to non controlled books and papers etc denied. All conversations monitored. Bit inspired by the way Romania and the GDR handled things before their fall.

The moment that happens, IS will have truly won with their fear mongering.

The only way to stop schoolyard bullying at school is to have a teacher follow each student at every moment they are at school. So being that this is impractical and silly, ought anything else be considered and why?

Maybe teaching kids how to be resilient, to physically defend themselves, to keep an eye on the ones likely to bully and likely to be picked on, to have a zero tolerance to bullying, to have safe areas at the school and try to be approachable for kids and to listen to them, may work.

It is a sort of thinking to say, there is no measure to fix the problem completely and so nothing should be done at all.

Nope, not what I said, nor what I implied.

Rape? Punish the rapists. If you find there is a culture problem causing certain types of rape, go and work on that culture too, but not in stead of punishing the rapists.
Alas, rape can't be prevented. It happens. Happens a lot by people known, trusted, family even.

Bullying in school, can't be prevented. Taking action against bullies and working on a culture that applauds bullying is what can be done.

Not accepting the kids from the Jones's, because two of the five Jones's attending school so far have been bullies is not acceptable.
Not accepting kids from the neighbourhood of the Jones's, because there may be more bullies from that neighbourhood is also unacceptable. But working on a culture that applauds bullying for certain kids is acceptable.

So, certain groups of Moroccan decent Dutch guys who are sexually harassing and raping young girls need to be addressed in the way they perceive the world. Just like the group of white Tukker 20 yo punks who built themselves a culture of making girls from age 12 on into "breezersluts". Both unacceptable. Both in a very specific mini culture that needs addressing. And all offenders need to get their punishment. No exceptions.

What not should happen is be weary of all guys from Moroccan or Tucker descent. (Tukkers are from a certain Dutch region)

IS?

Their influence comes via the internet big time. They get non Muslim youth converted and radicalised easily too. So where is the stopping?

There are more Muslims victim of IS than non Muslims. Some of them flee, with very good reason. Perfect spies won't be detected, no matter how thorough the screening.

Resilience from within. Training on not being afraid. On not letting the fear win. By not getting into a victim role. Works for a nation I think. Will work on a schoolyard too. Part of not getting victimised will happen through punishing those who maim, bully and terrorise. And, in many cases, also in giving them the chance to redeem themselves.

[Al Swearegen]

The only way to avoid radicalisation by IS in a country is to shut it down totally watertight.

All borders completely closed, all of the internet closed, all access to non controlled books and papers etc denied. All conversations monitored. Bit inspired by the way Romania and the GDR handled things before their fall.

The moment that happens, IS will have truly won with their fear mongering.

The only way to stop schoolyard bullying at school is to have a teacher follow each student at every moment they are at school. So being that this is impractical and silly, ought anything else be considered and why?

Maybe teaching kids how to be resilient, to physically defend themselves, to keep an eye on the ones likely to bully and likely to be picked on, to have a zero tolerance to bullying, to have safe areas at the school and try to be approachable for kids and to listen to them, may work.

It is a sort of thinking to say, there is no measure to fix the problem completely and so nothing should be done at all.

Nope, not what I said, nor what I implied.

Rape? Punish the rapists. If you find there is a culture problem causing certain types of rape, go and work on that culture too, but not in stead of punishing the rapists.
Alas, rape can't be prevented. It happens. Happens a lot by people known, trusted, family even.

Bullying in school, can't be prevented. Taking action against bullies and working on a culture that applauds bullying is what can be done.

Not accepting the kids from the Jones's, because two of the five Jones's attending school so far have been bullies is not acceptable.
Not accepting kids from the neighbourhood of the Jones's, because there may be more bullies from that neighbourhood is also unacceptable. But working on a culture that applauds bullying for certain kids is acceptable.

So, certain groups of Moroccan decent Dutch guys who are sexually harassing and raping young girls need to be addressed in the way they perceive the world. Just like the group of white Tukker 20 yo punks who built themselves a culture of making girls from age 12 on into "breezersluts". Both unacceptable. Both in a very specific mini culture that needs addressing. And all offenders need to get their punishment. No exceptions.

What not should happen is be weary of all guys from Moroccan or Tucker descent. (Tukkers are from a certain Dutch region)

IS?

Their influence comes via the internet big time. They get non Muslim youth converted and radicalised easily too. So where is the stopping?

There are more Muslims victim of IS than non Muslims. Some of them flee, with very good reason. Perfect spies won't be detected, no matter how thorough the screening.

Resilience from within. Training on not being afraid. On not letting the fear win. By not getting into a victim role. Works for a nation I think. Will work on a schoolyard too. Part of not getting victimised will happen through punishing those who maim, bully and terrorise. And, in many cases, also in giving them the chance to redeem themselves.

I never said once that any method would catch all radicalised Muslim extremists and so I am not sure why I would need to have this shown to me or to need to admit or concede that. I said the same thing myself.

I think that has pretty much nothing to do with what I have been saying about the freezing of the Muslim immigration ban whilst the vetting systems are bought up to scratch, that Trump initially suggested.

The only way to avoid radicalisation by IS in a country is to shut it down totally watertight.

All borders completely closed, all of the internet closed, all access to non controlled books and papers etc denied. All conversations monitored. Bit inspired by the way Romania and the GDR handled things before their fall.

The moment that happens, IS will have truly won with their fear mongering.

Why must it be that my position is countered by either the type of position above (ALL approach) OR to the everything is fine as it is approach of Odeon's? (Nothing approach).

No, I do not accept the parameters AT ALL. I think it would be ridiculous to do so.

My example of schoolyard bullying is an example of this. You may not be able to stop it completely BUT you look at what you can do. It does not mean that you have to do the impossible nor does it mean you do nothing because you cannot stop it.

There is a very real problem with Radical Islamic Extremism. It is not even up for question that there is an issue. It is an international issue. It is not up for question that vast numbers are immigrating to other countries as a form of hijrah and that they are also seeking to radicalise people in other countries. It is not up for question that there are nearly 1000 active cases in US of Islamic extremism that the FBI is looking at. Nor is it a matter of contention that the checking methods are such that often verification is near impossible for verifying many prospective refugees. Even when checking for rudimentary disease checking, they are missing TB in screenings. Its sloppy.

So these things are all known. You may not think it is a big deal and clearly Odeon doesn't, but I do. Now whilst my opinion on the value or importance of the threat or the risk of damage is subjective, so is everyone else's. So therefore I DO think something should be done even in acknowledging not everything can be. Trump suggested improving the vetting systems and freezing Muslim immigration whilst doing so and I think that is a fine idea in principle.

If he was able to work out how that would work in practice and get around any impracticalities such as I have previously mentioned, it makes good sense. Is it possible he can? Dunno. Might there be other alternatives to this that are equally as good? Maybe. I would be keen to hear them too.

What I will not nod my head to are the following:

Doing nothing is better because there is no problem
Things are fine as they are.
Everyone has to be a bit more accepting
This is picking on a whole race/religion
This is unconstitutional
I need to plan how this will all work
I need to adopt other similar positions
This is bigotry

I do not see the big issues. If it is a temporary measure. If it is to fix an obvious problem. If it is for the benefit of all the citizens in a country and to protect and safeguard them. If it doesn't stop decent Muslims coming in once the vetting system is fixed. If it does not prevent Muslim immigrants from immigrating elsewhere in the meantime. I see no issue.

Perfectly reasonable. Once the vetting system is up and running then the people in will be screened better and vetted better. The confidence in the level of security and safety will be better and whilst danger will always be a part of life, the threat of US Based radicalised Islamic extremism should go down. These are all good things and someone putting this in place successfully should be commended.

[odeon]

Of course you don't see an issue with it. You are not affected in any way. But tell me, how would this work? How would the FBI know when they've "fixed it"? And which group would be banned next, as another "temporary" measure? I bet the next group would be so much easier than the first one.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Al Swearegen]

Of course you don't see an issue with it. You are not affected in any way. But tell me, how would this work? How would the FBI know when they've "fixed it"? And which group would be banned next, as another "temporary" measure? I bet the next group would be so much easier than the first one.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Why are you asking the same questions as I have posed? Isn't that redundant?

As for Martin Niemoller, i am well aware of this and I believe in these principles too. Who in America would you be protecting? The women, men, children, gay, straight, black, white, Asian, Christian, Atheist, Muslims....?

Yes when they come for Gays in Gay nightclubs even if you are not gay, speak out for them
When they attack your children in swimming pools, even if you are not a child, speak out for them
When they attack your women at rock concerts, even if you are not a woman, speak out for them
When they blow up another country's marathons and airports, even if you are foreign, speak out for them.

One day IF you allow these things to slide without increased measures in place to repel the threat then you may find that the problem visits the people you love and in the worse ways imaginable. No point then reflecting on your time to speak up and say "Shit, maybe all those off-colour allusions to the risk of falling furniture was wrong. Maybe I ought to have said something or at least supported in principle measures to mitigate such risks?

Are we talking bans or temporary freezes and is it ONLY in America or does the Muslim immigrant in question have no place they can go if not America? IF the problems in vetting are fixed then how would you imagine that they would need to do it again and why? Have you any reasoning here and anything to back or is this another emotional argument devoid of rationality?

[Queen Victoria]

"Yes when they come for Gays in Gay nightclubs even if you are not gay, speak out for them
When they attack your children in swimming pools, even if you are not a child, speak out for them
When they attack your women at rock concerts, even if you are not a woman, speak out for them
When they blow up another country's marathons and airports, even if you are foreign, speak out for them."


 ReallY?  Your children?  Your women?  That's mighty paternalistic of you. 

[Al Swearegen]

"Yes when they come for Gays in Gay nightclubs even if you are not gay, speak out for them
When they attack your children in swimming pools, even if you are not a child, speak out for them
When they attack your women at rock concerts, even if you are not a woman, speak out for them
When they blow up another country's marathons and airports, even if you are foreign, speak out for them."


 ReallY?  Your children?  Your women?  That's mighty paternalistic of you.

Yes really. The "your" being your fellow citizens. Your community. I do not consider that paternalistic.  I do consider it decent.

Martin Niemoller as you are aware was aware of different groups in his community that he was not prepared to stick up for because he did not belong to that group. He did not speak up against the Nazis.

If you are prepared to let shit slide when it is bad because you don't want to rock the boat and you are not wishing to speak up against the people that are being targeted in your community then you have no right to expect these same people will look after you when you need it.

[odeon]

You are targeting everyone sharing a religion because some terrorists happen to be Muslim. You support a bigot who is saying that his proposed ban of ALL Muslims should go on until "this country can figure out what's going on" (not, btw, merely until the FBI has some vetting procedures in place; one would think they'd have something by now, considering that they've been at it a long time).

Legal experts disagree on the constitutionality of the proposal, btw, mainly because those arriving at the US borders may not be US citizens.

And me, and apparently quite a few others with me, I think it's bigoted and narrow-minded and moronic and actually quite scary, which is why I quoted Martin Niemöller. If you want to label that as emotional, so be it.