INTENSITY²
Arena for the Competitive => Main Event Callouts => Topic started by: Al Swearegen on June 19, 2016, 03:30:43 AM
-
....but still....here is your chance to address the accusation of me being blatantly bigoted
So increase surveillance and access to intelligence on these communities in US may help deal with future potential problems BUT what will NOT is Clinton trying to bring in 500% of the current rates of Syrian refugees (When the Intelligence community in America registers that they are unable to confidently screen and vet everyone decently). Freezing Muslim immigration until America can screen more confidently will ABSOLUTELY reduce the potential of more similar attacks.
About 100,000 or so Syrian refugees had fled to Sweden by the end of last year, while a mere 4,000 got as far as the US. We have yet to have anything even remotely like Orlando or San Bernadino here, so I think what you are describing here is yet another logic fail in one of Donald's speeches (and I'm ignoring the blatant bigotry for now).
But the capital letters sure look dramatic.
Its a big implication and I imagine you not addressing it will not reflect badly on me. (Though to be honest I don't think you could make the case for it regardless. In fact I think as badly as you did making a case for me being intellectually dishonest, you will fail harder with this.)
Probably best to pretend that you have not seen it or read it?
-
"Freezing Muslim immigration until America can screen more confidently..."
This statement, straight from Donald Trump's campaign book, has no factual basis whatsoever, but it singles out a group of people for... what? There's really not much I need to prove here. You did all the work. This wouldn't have stopped any "similar attack", since the act in question was one perpetrated by an American national, and so your proposed action is irrelevant.
And sorry but yes, this kind of statement does reflect badly on you.
-
...it singles out a group of people for... what?
Ooh, ooh, ooh! I know the answer to this one!!! :nerdy:
-
What's the answer, Pappy? What is it? :orly:
-
"Freezing Muslim immigration until America can screen more confidently..."
This statement, straight from Donald Trump's campaign book, has no factual basis whatsoever, but it singles out a group of people for... what? There's really not much I need to prove here. You did all the work. This wouldn't have stopped any "similar attack", since the act in question was one perpetrated by an American national, and so your proposed action is irrelevant.
And sorry but yes, this kind of statement does reflect badly on you.
Not at all. It reflects badly on you that you see it as unreasonable.
San Bernardino, Orlando, Chattanooga and 9/11 and there are more that are caught before they become problems. How many are being actively investigated? 900, the Director of FBI, James Comey says. How many potential terrorist immigrants have slipped through the vetting systems in place? Comey says that it potentially is dozens.. Ex-CIA operative and analysist Clare Lopez says that the FBI and other intelligence agencies, not only cannot cope with what the have but often have no means to check on immigrants records such as with the Syrian government infrastructure. There are simply little to no records they can avail themselves of.
Given the instances that we see of the FBI and DHS failing to identify threats until after the event or not following through. We can reasonably conclude that until better measures and better solutions are in place there will be no way of checking to a degree of certainty needed to ensure a reasonable expectation of national safety.
There is actually a LOT you need here. I am singling out Radical Islamic fundamentalists and their obvious link to Radical Islamic based terrorism and it's difficulty to distinguish on the basis of poor records, from decent moderate Muslims.
Now tell me HOW singling out Radical Muslims with their hateful beliefs is an incorrect or bigoted thing to say. Is it in any way false?
No?
You have plenty to back and saying you don't is lazy. One might say, intellectually lazy, low.
BTW Don't care that Matten was a national. He was radicalised with Radical Islamic beliefs and did it for ISIS rather than at their behest
-
But you're not singling out radical Muslims, you are singling out Muslims. You may think it's "reasonable", me, I think it goes against all that freedom shit the US used to boast about and is bigoted in the extreme.
And it does not address the problems with US nationals shooting each other. At all.
Did you know that a US citizen is about 5,000 times more likely to die from preventable medical errors than terrorism? No? Why aren't the doctors being hunted down and brought into justice? Do you think it would help to shut the borders?
Did you know that more than 10,000 people die from gun-related homicides in the US every year? Which group should be singled out, and who can the US prevent from entering the country to combat this?
-
But you're not singling out radical Muslims, you are singling out Muslims. You may think it's "reasonable", me, I think it goes against all that freedom shit the US used to boast about and is bigoted in the extreme.
And it does not address the problems with US nationals shooting each other. At all.
Did you know that a US citizen is about 5,000 times more likely to die from preventable medical errors than terrorism? No? Why aren't the doctors being hunted down and brought into justice? Do you think it would help to shut the borders?
Did you know that more than 10,000 people die from gun-related homicides in the US every year? Which group should be singled out, and who can the US prevent from entering the country to combat this?
Nope I am not singling out all Muslims. You are not (presumably) silly enough to not see that I have consistently indicated that Radical Muslims AND have not said anything that could remotely be considered bigoted against Muslims as a whole.
I have stated some uncomfortable truths and said that I support in principle the idea of preventing ALL Muslim immigrants until the Radical Muslims can be identified within the Muslim immigrant applicants..
If a particularly infectious and often fatal disease that was at risk of causing damage to the US and it was difficult to detect the host of said disease in a given community BUT you knew for certain that the country the immigrants were applying to come from was where it was running rampant, then it may well seem unfair, injustice or even putting the poor healthy non-infected people at risk of harm not letting them in.
In this example the difficult to detect infectious disease is Radical Muslim ideology.
I like the next part of your reasoning.
"Muslim radicals? Pfftt...American doctors suck. Americans have guns and guns kill people, be outraged over that. What do you suggest about that" (paraphrased)
What the Americans do or don't do about this entirely up to the Americans. There was a guy who used to argue a lot about guns in America. Hostage was Piers Morgan. A lot of similar talking points. He was shut down in the end after being slammed again and again by his opponents, his ratings died and he got dumped
Let's pretend for a moment that this was another gun problem. Being that Americans are not going to stand for restrictive measures on guns...what would be your answer to that? Nothing? Great conversation.
As for it doing nothing to stop US nationals shooting each other, well that's just stupid. That National was a radicalised Muslim. He and Nationals like him (and the Chattanooga gunman) are no less Radicalised Muslims for being raised in US. FBI is stretched too thin and if the can be left to stop problems with who they have here and work out how to differentiate decent Muslims from Radicalised crazies, then they have a chance to check the potential menace.
You do know that immigration is not a right? It is not assumed that any country has to take any particular immigrant. It's not what a country owes you.
-
A Swede and an Australian walk into a bar and begin to argue US domestic policy.... ;)
-
But you're not singling out radical Muslims, you are singling out Muslims. You may think it's "reasonable", me, I think it goes against all that freedom shit the US used to boast about and is bigoted in the extreme.
And it does not address the problems with US nationals shooting each other. At all.
Did you know that a US citizen is about 5,000 times more likely to die from preventable medical errors than terrorism? No? Why aren't the doctors being hunted down and brought into justice? Do you think it would help to shut the borders?
Did you know that more than 10,000 people die from gun-related homicides in the US every year? Which group should be singled out, and who can the US prevent from entering the country to combat this?
Nope I am not singling out all Muslims. You are not (presumably) silly enough to not see that I have consistently indicated that Radical Muslims AND have not said anything that could remotely be considered bigoted against Muslims as a whole.
Consistently? Nope, sorry. Look at that other thread where I prove you wrong by quoting you.
I have stated some uncomfortable truths and said that I support in principle the idea of preventing ALL Muslim immigrants until the Radical Muslims can be identified within the Muslim immigrant applicants..
Actually, you've stated some uncomfortably bigoted views--parroted Donald, essentially--and then failed to provide anything to support them. Just like Donald.
If a particularly infectious and often fatal disease that was at risk of causing damage to the US and it was difficult to detect the host of said disease in a given community BUT you knew for certain that the country the immigrants were applying to come from was where it was running rampant, then it may well seem unfair, injustice or even putting the poor healthy non-infected people at risk of harm not letting them in.
In this example the difficult to detect infectious disease is Radical Muslim ideology.
I like the next part of your reasoning.
"Muslim radicals? Pfftt...American doctors suck. Americans have guns and guns kill people, be outraged over that. What do you suggest about that" (paraphrased)
Huh? You're not making any sense. I take it this was supposed to be witty?
What the Americans do or don't do about this entirely up to the Americans. There was a guy who used to argue a lot about guns in America. Hostage was Piers Morgan. A lot of similar talking points. He was shut down in the end after being slammed again and again by his opponents, his ratings died and he got dumped
Let's pretend for a moment that this was another gun problem. Being that Americans are not going to stand for restrictive measures on guns...what would be your answer to that? Nothing? Great conversation.
Actually I believe a sizable portion of the US are in favour of the gun control measures suggested by President Obama. Great conversation.
As for it doing nothing to stop US nationals shooting each other, well that's just stupid. That National was a radicalised Muslim. He and Nationals like him (and the Chattanooga gunman) are no less Radicalised Muslims for being raised in US. FBI is stretched too thin and if the can be left to stop problems with who they have here and work out how to differentiate decent Muslims from Radicalised crazies, then they have a chance to check the potential menace.
You do know that immigration is not a right? It is not assumed that any country has to take any particular immigrant. It's not what a country owes you.
You do know that refugees have rights, don't you? There was also this silly little thing written in the late 40s and early 50s, about universal human rights that just happened to include religion. I believe one of its original authors was an American.
:yawn:
-
Oh, and I have shown that you were bigoted, as you included every Muslim (and anyone living in Muslim-dominated countries I believe it was), without exception, in your post in the Orlando thread. Here it is in its entirety:
The comparison with the Paris attacks is an odd one--that one was a well-planned attack, carried out by a terror organisation cell. The Orlando attack was the act of a loner, a US citizen who bought the weapon legally, no questions asked, in spite of having been previously questioned by the FBI.
Of course it's a gun problem.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-remarks-gun-control-hauntingly-000000581.html
It was from a radicalised Muslim man on behalf of ISIS (that is that he did this based on what he thought would please them and they were so pleased and took credit for it).
BUT he used a gun. So what?
Paris http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994
Brussels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings
Rotherham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
Cologne http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3408033/Muslim-cleric-says-Cologne-sex-attacks-victims-fault-wore-PERFUME.html
Cause and effect. Ascribing the wrong cause is almost as harmful as excusing it
Like this bloke https://www.rt.com/news/338779-somalian-refugee-raped-politician/
Just a gun problem. No. It is an ideological problem. It is NOT a gun problem or a toxic masculinity problem as some Feminists were happier labeling it. It is a problem with radicalised Muslims committing terrorist actions on behalf of a horrible ideology.
End of.
Now Hillary Clinton believes that increasing 500% the amount of Syrian Muslims immigrants into America is a great idea. Trump thinks placing a freeze on immigration of Muslims and folks from Muslim dominant countries is the way to go.
I think Trump is being rational but I don't think his immigration policy would be easily implemented or adhered to. It is something though.
Of course one could say, "Why are they displaced from their country in the first place and as a result of who's actions? Surely not the countries they are immigrating to? If they are immigrating there are they likely to be happy with the host country or not? But that is an entirely different point.
I've highlighted the relevant bits.
I don't think we have a peanut gallery (people are probably avoiding these callouts like the plague by now), so I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.
Oh, and one last thing:
I like it how you tend to try and use the fact that I pay for our host against me when you are in a sufficiently pissy mood. The subject line of this callout is just the latest example. Is it that you feel intimidated?
-
Consistently? Nope, sorry. Look at that other thread where I prove you wrong by quoting you.
I did look and I saw one thread that you had a number of my quotes in and nothing that I disavow and none that was bigoted.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23712.0.html
I have stated some uncomfortable truths and said that I support in principle the idea of preventing ALL Muslim immigrants until the Radical Muslims can be identified within the Muslim immigrant applicants..
Actually, you've stated some uncomfortably bigoted views--parroted Donald, essentially--and then failed to provide anything to support them. Just like Donald.
Actually, that is completely false.
Here is a little thought experiment consider all your biases and preconceptions of what I think and support to one side.
If I said "I think that no radical Muslims should be allowed or able to travel outside their country because they are a threat to any other country they visit"
Would you agree, in principle?
If I said that "These radicalised Muslims are hateful, zealous, ideologues with death and suffering on their mind and are perverting Islamic Belief systems in order to do these terrible things with righteous justification".
Would you agree, in principle?
If I said that "Americans should not have these people in their country and they ought not feel obliged to have hateful radicalised Muslims in the country"
Would you agree, in principle?
If I said that "The screening processes in America and the investigative FBI processes seem a little below par".
Would you agree, in principle?
If I said "It is difficult without good screening measure to know what is in another person's head. Radicalised Muslims do not come with a tattoo on their forehead and the decent Muslim man or woman or child that wants to make their home in America and contribute to the society and culture in America is sometimes very hard if not impossible to pick from the radicalised or the potential radical."
Would you agree, in principle?
Now what is the next step? To my mind if you cannot screen properly and there is a threat (you can argue all you like as to whether there is or how great it is - just as you could about New Years Eve in a German Town or a quick dip in a Swedish pool outside of segregated hours if you are a woman), but I am going to say that we have a difference of opinion on the degree here. So if I am closer to you in the degree of threat then the next step is if you cannot screen effectively and you are at risk of things going really badly, then put a hold on the immigration and direct energies into developing better screening processes and coming up with better options. Simply hold off on the risk of working with flawed systems and wait until a better replacement is in place. If you are unable to differentiate good from bad and radical from moderate do not take the risk until you can reduce it down further.
Its a pretty simple logical follow through. I understand your saying "I don't believe the threat is a bad one". You are entitled to that opinion but it is only an opinion. I have a different opinion. You can say if you stop all Muslim immigration that is bigoted. Okay you can take that position. Its rather sad, but that is fine. I do not think so. I can swing the pendulum back your way and say,
"Acknowledging that the FBI are doing a pretty average job with what they have at the moment, How can they better differentiate good moderate Muslims from Radicalised Muslim Extremists if those extremists are trying to immigrate by pretending to be good moderate Muslims?"
You got nothing. You want to take a dump on the concept without being able to offer a better option? Great. Nice talk.
If a particularly infectious and often fatal disease that was at risk of causing damage to the US and it was difficult to detect the host of said disease in a given community BUT you knew for certain that the country the immigrants were applying to come from was where it was running rampant, then it may well seem unfair, injustice or even putting the poor healthy non-infected people at risk of harm not letting them in.
In this example the difficult to detect infectious disease is Radical Muslim ideology.
I like the next part of your reasoning.
"Muslim radicals? Pfftt...American doctors suck. Americans have guns and guns kill people, be outraged over that. What do you suggest about that" (paraphrased)
Huh? You're not making any sense. I take it this was supposed to be witty?
Not making any sense. Okay I will spell it out to you:
If a disease like Ebola on steroids that spreads quickly and is really deadly but also difficult to detect, starts in a country like.....I dunno....Iran. It spreads like wildfire and is not contained before it crosses the border into nearby countries and population. People flee in terror of this horrid disease and try to escape to other countries as refugees. Many do not know they are infected. Some do but are hiding their secret. Many are not infected yet. They all want to immigrate to the United States of America. Three options:
A) Bring them in at normal rates, business as usual - subpar screening.
B) Bring them in at accelerated rates - subpar screening
c) Acknowledge you have subpar screening and cannot detect all the sick ones and do not let any in until you can differentiate healthy from sick and sanction America from the diseased ones even if not allowing perfectly healthy ones in (as they may actually be sick but unable to be diagnosed) and that not doing so may place these innocents in harm's way.
C is not a nice option but it is not bigoted against Iranians.
(Oh yes swap ebola on steroids with Radical Islam and the point should make itself. If not I could make another analogy with Swedish Swimming Pools and the need for segregated swimming times.)
What the Americans do or don't do about this entirely up to the Americans. There was a guy who used to argue a lot about guns in America. Hostage was Piers Morgan. A lot of similar talking points. He was shut down in the end after being slammed again and again by his opponents, his ratings died and he got dumped
Let's pretend for a moment that this was another gun problem. Being that Americans are not going to stand for restrictive measures on guns...what would be your answer to that? Nothing? Great conversation.
Actually I believe a sizable portion of the US are in favour of the gun control measures suggested by President Obama. Great conversation.
I believe that Americans are most reluctant to be disarmed by the Government and that they are wary of any restrictions placed on their "gun rights". But we are simply disagreeing on this. We are both foreigners. I know what guns were in Australia prior to Port Arthur and now and it did not stop or impinge on my family's gun ownership or gun use. But we have a different culture here. I am sure Sweden has different culture again, around guns.
As for it doing nothing to stop US nationals shooting each other, well that's just stupid. That National was a radicalised Muslim. He and Nationals like him (and the Chattanooga gunman) are no less Radicalised Muslims for being raised in US. FBI is stretched too thin and if the can be left to stop problems with who they have here and work out how to differentiate decent Muslims from Radicalised crazies, then they have a chance to check the potential menace.
You do know that immigration is not a right? It is not assumed that any country has to take any particular immigrant. It's not what a country owes you.
See I told you I answered this. You asked me again though you know you had asked it and I had answered it. Damn!
You do know that refugees have rights, don't you? There was also this silly little thing written in the late 40s and early 50s, about universal human rights that just happened to include religion. I believe one of its original authors was an American.
Of course I do. Why do I care the nationality of the author or about religions being included. I think that Muslims can practice their Islamic faith and should. I am not religious myself but I have no care if others are. If it brings them joy and comfort, fine. If they pervert the religion and introduce other hateful ideologies and interpretations to foster something that we see with the Radicalised Muslims and ISIS or ISIS inspired terrorists, then I got a problem with them.
SO I know you were trying for implicit but you came across as just vague.
:yawn:
Whatever
Oh, and I have shown that you were bigoted, as you included every Muslim (and anyone living in Muslim-dominated countries I believe it was), without exception, in your post in the Orlando thread. Here it is in its entirety:
The comparison with the Paris attacks is an odd one--that one was a well-planned attack, carried out by a terror organisation cell. The Orlando attack was the act of a loner, a US citizen who bought the weapon legally, no questions asked, in spite of having been previously questioned by the FBI.
Of course it's a gun problem.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-remarks-gun-control-hauntingly-000000581.html
It was from a radicalised Muslim man on behalf of ISIS (that is that he did this based on what he thought would please them and they were so pleased and took credit for it).
BUT he used a gun. So what?
Paris http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994
Brussels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings
Rotherham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
Cologne http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3408033/Muslim-cleric-says-Cologne-sex-attacks-victims-fault-wore-PERFUME.html
Cause and effect. Ascribing the wrong cause is almost as harmful as excusing it
Like this bloke https://www.rt.com/news/338779-somalian-refugee-raped-politician/
Just a gun problem. No. It is an ideological problem. It is NOT a gun problem or a toxic masculinity problem as some Feminists were happier labeling it. It is a problem with radicalised Muslims committing terrorist actions on behalf of a horrible ideology.
End of.
Now Hillary Clinton believes that increasing 500% the amount of Syrian Muslims immigrants into America is a great idea. Trump thinks placing a freeze on immigration of Muslims and folks from Muslim dominant countries is the way to go.
I think Trump is being rational but I don't think his immigration policy would be easily implemented or adhered to. It is something though.
Of course one could say, "Why are they displaced from their country in the first place and as a result of who's actions? Surely not the countries they are immigrating to? If they are immigrating there are they likely to be happy with the host country or not? But that is an entirely different point.
I've highlighted the relevant bits.
I don't think we have a peanut gallery (people are probably avoiding these callouts like the plague by now), so I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.
Oh, and one last thing:
I like it how you tend to try and use the fact that I pay for our host against me when you are in a sufficiently pissy mood. The subject line of this callout is just the latest example. Is it that you feel intimidated?
You keep saying that I am in a pissy mood. It looks like projection. As for intimidated? By what? You? YOUR opinions? God, why?
The reason why I did it is quite easy to ascertain. You said that you were not going to answer my callout. I made this callout, bought up the fact that you were boss and could make your own rules, I changed my signature and showed you a number of times of you banging on about the importance of backing yourself. What do you think the result was? Callout answered. Pissy? Please. But I am glad you like it all the same. I will remember that you do.
I see all of what I wrote and you still are not making a point. You were trying to show blatant bigotry. You posted what I said but I saw what I said and what is more I KNOW what I said and so showing me what I wrote is simply copying me not proving a point not showing me.
There was a very specific claim and I think you should back it.
I do think that IF there is a big threat to US (which I believe there is) through the Muslim immigrant population, of radicalised Muslims, AND the FBI is not doing a sufficient job of screen due to either poor records to screen or poor processes (which I again believe), then the concept of stopping this yet unquantifiable risk to US by preventing Radicalised Muslims that are (I believe) very difficult to differentiate in Muslim immigrant populations, stopping all Muslim immigrants until you can improve your screening process is a rational and logical conclusion.
That is the concept. It makes sense in theory. How does it work in practice? I don't know. But what I do know is that the alternatives seem pretty thin. That is fine if you do not believe that there is a big threat in Swedish swimming pools to the US through immigration of radicalised Muslims, OR if you believe that the FBI is managing this screening process fine.
If you do not believe these things then it becomes "What is the alternatives?" Cross your finger and hope for the best? If you are saying that "These things are a problem but it is ONLY radicalised Muslims and not Muslims as a whole", I never said otherwise and in fact went to great pains to never do so and be VERY clear I was singling out radicalised Muslims.
That said and agreed with, if you say "JUST stop radicalised Muslims from immigrating then if they are the problem", we are back to square one. It does not square away if FBI do not effectively screen the radicalised Muslims. Therefore the threat that is not reduced more than it is already.
Again you made no point. You did not back your position and your sure as Hell did not show where I was blatantly bigoted. It would be super if you could though. You have written enough now to flesh things out and lay the groundwork (hopefully). Now actually show where i am blatantly bigoted.
-
At first, you thought simply that what Donald said was rational but perhaps difficult to implement, but then, in a later post, said that you'd like to have them stop both Muslims and anyone from Muslim-dominated countries at the border until they know how to fix their screening processes or something to that effect. Can't be arsed to find the quotes but you know which ones I am referring to, right?
And now, in this latest marvel of yours, you are comparing Muslims to Ebola in a nice roundabout way. That's right, isn't it? It's what you are saying.
Me, I think it's bigoted as fuck.
As for the majority of Americans being in favour of Obama's gun control measures, that's not me believing anything, it's a poll (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/poll-obama-gun-action/).
And you still haven't produced a shred of evidence for anything, just a bunch of largely irrelevant hypotheticals and ifs and what you "believe". I don't know, maybe some of it sounds rational to you, but it's all about playing on people's fears, isn't it? No facts, no numbers, nothing rational in sight.
You managed to find a public swimming pool in Kalmar with cases of sexual harassment (most of them probably about what happened there in the new year and what some suggest was organised), somehow equated that with everyone in Sweden (my family, at the very least) being in danger in public and unsegregated swimming pools, but still failed to produce proof for the actual topic at hand. Or, for that matter, proof of the crime wave you imply would have resulted from the 100,000 refugees (there is none; according to BRÅ, the actual rates have remained largely unchanged).
So forget about your hypotheticals and "thought experiments". Produce proof. Show us that banning Muslims from entering the US is not at all bigoted, complies with those pesky human rights, and actually does something. Anything, apart from pissing off whole countries, that is. A hint, though: a hypothetical comparing Muslims to Ebola, subtle as it may be, is not the way to go.
-
"Muslim radicals? Pfftt...American doctors suck. Americans have guns and guns kill people, be outraged over that." (paraphrased)
I wish more people were.
-
Again, I know but you don't. I know there has not been a shift of positions. I know my position has been that there is a very real threat with Radicalised Muslims for the US. My belief is the the FBI are not able to effectively screen/investigate these threats. I believe that these radicalised Muslim immigrants are found within the general, moderate Muslim immigrant community.
These are my beliefs. I see in America, three responses suggested to this threat. Business as usual - Obama. Increase immigration from Muslim communities - Hillary or Put a freeze on Muslim Immigration until screening can better judge the threat - Trump.
It's all too easy to see that if you believe what I believe then you are going to think that the freeze on Muslim immigration the most constructive of the three.
You can say that it would be unfair on perfectly decent and moderate Muslims and I agree totally. It would be. If you said if radicalised Muslims are the problem just keep them out. I agree again. But if screening is not up to scratch and we both agree here then until such time that screening is up to scratch what do you do to make sure the you are decreasing chances to migrating Radicalised Muslims in your country?
If the only thing you have is don't worry I don't believe it a threat, then I disagree. Like with the political options of Trump and Hillary, we have poor options before us and I think both increasing Muslim immigration and leaving it unchanged are worse than Trump's idea,
As to whether idea is workable or practical, that is a different question. As to whether his (rather than my idea) is all Muslim immigrants or all Muslims from Muslim dominated countries, he has said both. How does this effect the concept? Not a lot. As mentioned before, the determined will go through another non-flagged country and say they are not Muslim. So the practicality of implementing this idea into a strategy or plan may be difficult. Doable? No idea.
There of course is how to quantify risk, threat and improvement. If that idea is to place a freeze on temporarily until the screening process is better, how better? What is going to improve it? How do you measure these improvements? There has to be an end plan.
Again you lie. No you were confused, nor did you make a mistake or error in judgement, you lied, again.
Why do I say this? Because after spelling it out so that a child could get it that Good/moderate Muslims were described as both innocents and healthy in my analogy whilst Radicalised Muslims were the unhealthy ones with the disease. The disease itself "Ebola on steroids". The disease analogous to Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.
It was not hard. So when you say "I am comparing Muslim to Ebola" you are lying. Straight up. No way you don't get it. At all. Am I comparing a toxic pervasive dangerous threat to a toxic pervasive dangerous threat? Yes. What is that threat? Radicalised Islamic Fundamentalism and this hypothetical disease that is like Ebola on steroids.
So at this stage it is not even defensible by you to say you misinterpreted. You desperately want to lie about what I said in order to prop up yet another weak assertion. You either ought to take better positions in the first place or if you are forced to lie in order to pad your position, best give it up. Whatever point you were trying to make was obvious weak and likely petty.
You think it's bigoted as fuck? Is that why you are lying about it? No, I think you simply disagree. I think that this is simply a hot button topic for you in which you have strong opinions and you cannot imagine people able to hold opposing views without being flawed. That is what I think. It is like that meme worthy Bill Maher and Ben Affleck viral video.
"That not me believing anything, it's a poll"
I did chuckle at that.
Were you a few posts ago (I'm sure I can find it) going on about the unreliability of statistics due to biases and agenda driven results?
"Clear the way everyone, the truth is here I got a bible poll"
To be honest the swimming pools and the high rape statistics thing in Sweden, was not too hard to find. It is international news. If it is reaching Australia and if it is printed in time magazine or their website, it's not something you wave away, is it? Why are no other countries getting that treatment?
As for refugees rights, countries have rights too and responsibilities to THEIR citizens. Border control is something that is rightly dictated not by the wants of a refugee but by a country. In Australia if you fill in the right paperwork are screened and are authorised to immigrate, welcome to Australia, in you come. If you jump in an Indonesian boat and make your way here unexpected, you will be arrested and placed in a detention centre until we work out who you are, where you are from and what your purpose in Australia is.
Australians take border control very seriously.
-
"Belief".
It's what you counter with, when asked to back up your shit. You believe things.
Not good enough. We are talking about real people here, people whose beliefs are different from yours, people who apparently scare you and who drive you into an emotional argument rather than a logical one. Thinking is hard, emotional arguments are easy. You suck at the former but excel at the latter. Which is why you have yet to back up anything. Which is why you seem unable to critically examine the "evidence" you find on the internet, be it public swimming pools in Kalmar or Muslims at the US borders.
What's really sad is that you don't seem capable of recognising your beliefs for what they are.
-
"Belief".
It's what you counter with, when asked to back up your shit. You believe things.
Not good enough. We are talking about real people here, people whose beliefs are different from yours, people who apparently scare you and who drive you into an emotional argument rather than a logical one. Thinking is hard, emotional arguments are easy. You suck at the former but excel at the latter. Which is why you have yet to back up anything. Which is why you seem unable to critically examine the "evidence" you find on the internet, be it public swimming pools in Kalmar or Muslims at the US borders.
What's really sad is that you don't seem capable of recognising your beliefs for what they are.
This is not the silliest thing you have written lately, it's sad that this is the case, because it is very silly.
"These people" - which people?. You are not trying to push the All Muslims barrow are you? I think you are. I exposed you lying blatantly about it twice and now you are trying to vaguely imply it.
If "these people" is radicalised Muslim Fundamentals then you would be right that their beliefs are different. Different to mine. Different to yours and different to Moderate Muslims.
Just because someone believes in something different to you it doesn't mean that they are good or bad. If you asked Jack the Ripper what his views on prostitutes was, or Saddam Hussein's views on the Kurdish people, I am betting this will be a lot different to yours AND it would not be out of place to denounce those views.
As to me being scared....think about what I am supposed to be scared about. Struggling? Okay I will explain it.
You are assuming I would be scared about Radicalised Muslims (no actually you probably think I am scared of decent and moderate Muslims despite the clarity around this) entering America and the risk of violence that may result from a poorly vetting process for immigrants.
Right? So I would naturally be scared because...? Here is where you hit a roadblock. Am I in America? Will I ever be in America? Do I have ties to America? Will this affect me or could it affect me in any meaningful way? No? Well what the Hell would I be scared about?
So now if you can wrap your head around this you we can stop looking at this with perhaps the emotional weighting you are giving it. (I think that is why you've been lying too. Too emotional).
Donald Trump has said that radicalised Muslims are a threat to America. This is without question a fact. We could back this with referencing 9/11. Obviously there is a threat. That is logical. The threat is radical Islamic Fundamentals. But since then there may have been no other radical Islamic Fundamentalist attacks from Radicalised Muslims. IF this was the case maybe the threat had disappeared or was managed?
Boston Bombings
Chattanooga shootings
San Bernardino
Orlando
Okay so logically we need to explore the possibility the maybe the FBI is battling to contain such problems in US. Certainly the fact that they questioned Mateen twice and also that they have 900 active US based investigations supports this.....logically.
So if the are having problems with radicalised Muslims within, what about from without? Any similar problems outside of US or is it US based only?
London bombings
Brussels airport
Paris
Okay IF this so far is logical and rational then we have to be certain that FBI can do a better job in preventing radicalised Muslims to a their numerous problems nationally. Otherwise, logically, both the active investigations will rise from 900 and there will be more and more terror attacks from radical Muslim extremists.
Seems pretty reasonable. Now it is just about whether you believe this. What degree of threat you think this poses and what you think a reasonable response would be.
Donald Trump had an idea. I think the idea has merit. As an idea or concept and in view of everything I just explained, it seems to acknowledge and try to address this in a way that no other option has.
But it is just an idea. Tomorrow Bernie may come up with a way to better reduce the threat posed or vet immigrants or whatever. I would listen to what he had to say too. Hillary may....no she wouldn't... She sure as Hell would help create plenty of displaced immigrants that would hate American foreign policies though. I have not bound myself to this body and soul and nor will I die in the trenches over what a blowhard in America says about immigration. But in principle I agree with it and regardless of how he has fleshed it out or explained it, I can appreciate it and understand it.
I can also see why you are getting all emotional about this. Because in this option, there would be a freeze on Muslim immigration until FBI can improve their vetting processes (So as to reduce the risk of all citizens of US (Men, women, gas, straight, white, black, Christian and Muslim) from terrorism from radical Islamic terrorism.
Because of this you lost your mind and cast lies around in an attempt to make me a bigot and "prove" your charge. You said all Muslims coming to America." and "You compared all Muslims to Ebola". Both were lies but because they both came from a place of non-rational apparent hysteria, perhaps they can be forgiven.
Me? I don't have that moral outrage. Yes it certainly would be good riddance if Radical Muslims were prevented from immigrating to America and it would be unfortunate if decent moderate Muslims were held off from immigrating. But it makes sense to do so until risk is better managed. That is logical.
Maybe you were just emotional from me pointing out how international media has centred on horrific swimming pool assaults and rape statistics. I guess there is open and inclusive and open and inclusive?
I think one of us was definitely emotional but I am not that person. You seem to have a far greater emotional connection than I.
-
You should do something about furniture now, while you still have the chance. Well, that or your beliefs. And your argumentation while you're at it, because you suck at it.
Here's a list of school shootings in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States. Now, I could list them all here, to contrast them with your acts of terrorism, but it would be a very long post and so I'll give you another link instead:
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours
This one lists only the last 72 hours of gun-related violence--there is a link that says just that on the page, so I clicked that and the list, 12 pages, came with a disclaimer (highlighting the interesting part):
Thanks for your interest in our statistics! Unfortunately, we must limit result sets for the general public. If you would like more information or the full result set, please send an email with your name, organization, project and needs to inquiry@gva.us.com.
Now, admittedly your radicalised Muslims make for great headlines and the associated fear-mongering, but the fact is that you (meaning a US citizen, not the literal you, silly) are actually more likely to be killed by your own furniture than by a terrorist attack. And a lot more likely to be the victim of gun violence having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorists. Should you be the victim of a mass shooting, the likelihood is that the weapon that killed you was obtained legally.
Oh, and here's some more bedtime reading for you: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262#.VLhsjS42d6I
-
You should do something about furniture now, while you still have the chance. Well, that or your beliefs. And your argumentation while you're at it, because you suck at it.
Here's a list of school shootings in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States. Now, I could list them all here, to contrast them with your acts of terrorism, but it would be a very long post and so I'll give you another link instead:
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours
This one lists only the last 72 hours of gun-related violence--there is a link that says just that on the page, so I clicked that and the list, 12 pages, came with a disclaimer (highlighting the interesting part):
Thanks for your interest in our statistics! Unfortunately, we must limit result sets for the general public. If you would like more information or the full result set, please send an email with your name, organization, project and needs to inquiry@gva.us.com.
Now, admittedly your radicalised Muslims make for great headlines and the associated fear-mongering, but the fact is that you (meaning a US citizen, not the literal you, silly) are actually more likely to be killed by your own furniture than by a terrorist attack. And a lot more likely to be the victim of gun violence having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorists. Should you be the victim of a mass shooting, the likelihood is that the weapon that killed you was obtained legally.
Oh, and here's some more bedtime reading for you: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262#.VLhsjS42d6I
So essentially, just so I am being fair, you are saying because gun violence is more common than terrorism that the threat of terrorism from radical Muslim extremists is of little consequence and much ado about nothing? If it was not bought about by the comparison of gun violence against radical Muslim extremism then it surely was made with your mention of furniture killing people, right.
I do not want to take away anything less than the message you are trying to put out there. I do not want to be unfair. Perhaps you think that the ideology that was behind the gun violence can be targeted and that it was the same in each instance. Again, I do not want to pretend to understand your position.
So there is a collective ideology behind school shootings? No? Gun violence in general? No.
Let me put it another way. Mateen WAS a radicalised Muslim extremist. That WAS his ideology. He WAS going to kill gays. He HAD chosen the gay people in the club as his targets and selected them ahead of time. With me so far? IF he had no access to a gun and wanted to kill dozens of people at his club, would he have said, "Oh well too hard now, may as well give up on that idea?"
No. Because the ideology was behind his motive and so he would have targeted the gay people other ways. Bombs seem to be popular with Radical Muslim extremists. Arson and chemicals may have done equally as well. So that being the case how would gun restrictions stopped this guy killing dozens of people?
If what you are saying is that there may be issues in America such as bullying and ostracisation at schools, I think this is reasonable and though not a collective ideology certainly one that may be best addressed. If you are saying that gang violence is problematic and ought to be cracked down on by the authorities...sure. If you are saying that improvements mental health services may help, I'd agree. But all of these individual motives or reasons do not address any collective ideology. If the Westboro Baptists suddenly "upped" their hate and decided to shoot and bomb people you would see me both denouncing them and supporting any in principle move to stop them from being able to do so. By supporting harsh measures against them I would not expect you would say "You are a bigot and are against Christians" No, you have your limitations.
Now I can not speak for how little regard you have for the severity of radical Muslim extremism in the US that they are dealing with now, or around the world, that you wish America to import (and make no mistake IF the FBI have poor vetting systems to distinguish a decent moderate Muslim from a radical Muslim extremist you are absolutely giving no better option that for America to import radical Muslim extremists) but I would wonder whether your argument of "Now, admittedly your radicalised Muslims make for great headlines and the associated fear-mongering, but the fact is that you (meaning a US citizen, not the literal you, silly) are actually more likely to be killed by your own furniture than by a terrorist attack" may be of comfort to the families of victims of 9/11 or the Boston bombings or perhaps the families of gay people killed in Pulse?
Hey maybe you should say something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8INIH0JfNA8
Oh that Hillary!
Perhaps you could tell those families, "Could have been worse, they could have been squashed by a sofa bed....LOL"
No? Well shit, Odeon, maybe you did not make your point again.
Tell me IF you do not want a London style Bombing in US or a Paris style attack in a gun controlled city in US or a Brussels style airport attack in US or Cologne like New Years Eve celebrations or Swimming pool problems like in your Sweden or radicalised Muslim rape gangs like Rotherham...what is the alternative? Business as usual is not evidently enough and neither is gun controls. What do you have to reduce the risk of US importing these issues?
Is it talking about the severity of falling furniture? I hope you have a lot better than that.
-
Still no evidence, then? Nothing in the way of practical ideas on how to handle the stopping of those evil Muslims or how the FBI could ever learn? I didn't think you would... because an emotional argument is all that there is. It's what Donald does and it's what you do.
There are lots of risks associated with everyday living significantly higher than a terrorist attack. Rationally speaking, a government should probably address the higher risks before the lower ones, don't you think?
But where did I ever say that nothing should be done to a possible terrorist threat?
-
Still no evidence, then? Nothing in the way of practical ideas on how to handle the stopping of those evil Muslims or how the FBI could ever learn? I didn't think you would... because an emotional argument is all that there is. It's what Donald does and it's what you do.
There are lots of risks associated with everyday living significantly higher than a terrorist attack. Rationally speaking, a government should probably address the higher risks before the lower ones, don't you think?
But where did I ever say that nothing should be done to a possible terrorist threat?
Well I expect you will trot out the line "There are lots of risks associated with everyday living significantly higher than a terrorist attack" next time there is a Paris attack or a Brussels attack or next 9/11 style attack. Go on, promise me you will.
"Nothing in the way of practical ideas on how to handle the stopping of those evil Muslims or how the FBI could ever learn?"
Which evil Muslims are you talking about? Are you talking about radicalised Muslim extremists being evil or Muslims in general? If so why? Your words, I am just clarifying to see whether it is something I need to defend or something that I have never claimed or implied.
As for practical ideas....what? Now Odeon, just so that I have you right, you KNOW that Trump had a concept or idea which has not been fleshed out into a strategy or a policy. Right? When you say practical ideas this is exactly what you are asking right? Either you are saying what is the practical ideas (policies/strategies) around this OR can you make executive decisions to create strategies and policies around a concept that someone else had made mention of that you saw some merit in, right?
I mean correct me if I am wrong here. IS THAT what you are saying? I am absolutely fine with his idea in principle. I have no idea if it will work in practice and I have already told you some flaws in it I see. But that is fine I can agree with ideas in principle and that does NOT mean I have to work out the policies or practices, or procedures. Not my job Odeon. It would be MORONIC to imagine that there would be an expectation for me to create a framework or a set of policies or strategies for or on behalf of Donald Trump or the Government of America.
No Odeon when or if Donald Trump expands on this concept and fleshes it out, I, you and everyone else can them say "Okay that makes sense and seems workable" or "No that is terrible and will not work". We can do that from idea stage to after delivery. We are fine agreeing in principle with the concept and disagreeing or agreeing when it is better fleshed out as a practical idea to draw up policies around, we still can agree or disagree when it becomes a black and white policy, but even here once it is implemented the practical application may be great though it looked unworkable OR it may have seemed so great in theory and fallen apart when put in place.
We are at that very first stage. This is what we can judge it against. A concept. I see merit in it in broadbrush terms. I have mentioned my concerns about its application. It is imperfect and NEEDS work. I already stated too that it needs to have a measure of what and how the vetting process will be measure. Improve the vetting process, by what measure and how can we know when it is fixed and the freeze could be revoked. If it is temporary what end date or what other measure of conformity to unfreeze the temporary ban?
But whilst I have highlighted these things already, you say "I" have to address them? No, No Odeon the originator of the idea needs to address them if he is to put them in place. Who am I and who originated them? Who is in the position to address these things?
Have you forgotten who you are talking to? In your #NotAllMuslims, Falling furniture threat, Ebola=/=Muslims, Bigotry overly emotional narrative, did you forget who I was? I am not Donald Trump. I am not even a huge fan of his. I did not create this concept. He did. He did it primarily for an American audience and for their consumption but we foreigners CAN say whether we agree with it as a concept. You don't, I do.
Clare Lopez a former CIA operative and analyst has stated that countries like Syria and Libya have very poor infrastructure and record keeping as a result of the protracted conflicts have taken on their nations. She said that at best the records are substandard to non-existent for immigrants from these countries. She said screening is ineffective by any measure for immigrants from countries like these two and that ISIS has already confirmed that they will be implanting ISIS members in with regular moderate Muslims as a jihadi form of hijrah.
Now is Clare correct? Is Comey misspeaking? Maybe. I do not need to do further investigating and I sure as Hell don't need to make a Presidential Nominees policies and strategies for him. Anyone who thinks so is an idiot. (Charitably Odeon, I do not really think yo believe, this on a rational level. I believe you are letting your emotions or perhaps your hormones - if I may be so bold - run away with you). I think that when it comes to politics, religion, sex and money, some people become a little bit fired up. I think that you are probably one of those people. Politics. Fuck me. I am not right wing but I see right wing politics piss you right off. Good to know.
I used to be pretty traditional liberal (Classical Liberal) but they have lost their way. They have allowed Progressives (SJWs) into their nest and like the cuckoos, they are now feeding and raising people in the nest that act like them, but are not them, and are parasitical in nature. Now I am middle of the road. I will listen to Bill Maher, Christina Hoff Sommers and Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannapolous and Sean Hannity.
But you Odeon, the mere thought that the decent Muslims of Syria may be denied automatic immigration status to a foreign land may be a crime against humanity? A transgression again the most basest human right? Have a chill pill and relax. Want to dissuade undesirables from immigrating illegally or without correct identification? Villawood. No? It does dissuade people. If an extremist wants to fudge their ID but has to wait around in a detention centre in Australia for a couple of years and risk deportation, it may be easier to go to Sweden and hang on for two years in their Swimming Pools.
I don't mind holding different opinions to you Odeon. We are from different countries, different cultures and different life experiences. We are different BUT you lie about me and I WILL pursue it all around the board. I do not tolerate that in "real life" nor here. I do not care if you disagree with me. We all hold different opinions. I do care if you misrepresent or lie about me and you've been doing it a fair bit lately.
-
Very little Trump has said has actually been fleshed out in any way. Yet here you are, agreeing with him, and neither of you has bothered to prove anything. Well done, Al.
-
Very little Trump has said has actually been fleshed out in any way. Yet here you are, agreeing with him, and neither of you has bothered to prove anything. Well done, Al.
Okay this is how idiotic this is.
Pick a social issue:
Reduction of carbon emissions;
Intolerance of guy people;
Unemployment ;
Illegally rates;
Drug problems ;
Teenage parents;
Poverty ;
Whatever. Now if someone says that they would like one of these things improved and give a suggestion of how they may go about it. Then someone else says "I agree with them. What they have said so far, I agree with. They are right in acknowledging the issue and it's great that they have an idea I want to hear more"
You then going to the latter and demanding the plan, schedule, policies or procedures is really moronic. You think the latter needs to do that? You are not really that stupid are you?
If you wanted that information you would go to the former right? I mean that is if you wanted further details on THEIR idea because it is THEIR idea. The latter would be making it up if the former had not told the latter anything else. Furthermore the information shared was the same as you had, right? So what would you be asking? Proof?
Tell me you are not honestly and in good faith, asking for proof of information, that I cannot possibly have and positions on said information, that I cannot have assessed, and are not conflating this moronicly with me not proving something, that is possibly provable?
And "agreeing with him"? Agreeing with what? In principle with a concept? Absolutely, I want to hear more and see whether it flashes and as a plan or not. With everything he says? No. With how he says things? Sometimes.
What exactly are you saying and what do you imagine I need to give account of and why?
-
This is what happens when you get too emotional in an argument.
Suddenly someone agreeing in principle with an idea becomes a need for that person to agree to that idea and every aspect of its application and to take ownership of the origination of the thought and personally develop that concept to its end result complete with answers to all aspects of how that idea may work in said end result.
Here is how such a situation may work:
Person 1: Hmmm I read in a science magazine once that some scientists are considering colonising Mars. I think that is a great idea.
Person 2: Really? Fucking really? How are you going to do that?
Person 1: "How am "I" going to do that?" I am not it is an idea someone else had.
Person 2: No, you said that its a good idea, so why is it a good idea?
Person 1: In my opinion it will allow us to reach beyond our planet, and develop planet forming technology. I think it may help with population control and be a fresh start for a new generation of people. Also if one planet's people die off say with Asteroid or nuclear war or the like, we will have chance of our population surviving.
Person 2: So prove to me your idea will work.
Person 1: Prove? What?
Person 2: How will they terraform? What technology will they use? How will they create enough oxygen and water? Come on how will it plan out?
Person 1: Dude go fuck yourself, it is a great idea and even though it has not been fleshed out as a strategic plan (which I may or may not agree with), the concept I like and I have told you why I like it. There is NOTHING I need to prove and certainly not for you.
Person 2: See its all beliefs with you isn't it? No proof.
Person 1: Moron.
This is the kind of argument you just had over Donald Trump's Muslim ideas.
Sometimes people have ideas. Concepts may sound great and actually be bad ideas once they are fleshed out. Or may sound bad and after assessing them and fleshing them out, actually quite good and innovative. Ideas are starting point. We can all have opinions on them but as ideas we can only assess them on what they are IF they are someone else's ideas. If you think I am somehow Donald Trump's Strategic Advisor or Policy Maker or that I ought to assume such a standard when I agree with someone's concepts or ideas.
This is how stupid your position is. Why has your rational faculty fallen? Emotion.
-
I love it how you still haven't addressed Trump's campaign book ideas.
Oh well.
-
I love it how you still haven't addressed Trump's campaign book ideas.
Oh well.
What campaign book and why would you imagine I would need to address them.
I tend to find Sigmund Freud efforts on dealing with victims of post traumatic stress disorder meritorious but his ideas on Pens envy and the like sheer nonsense. Must I endorse or have to support both ideas?
What idea have I not vouch an opinion on of Trumps and why do you believe I must have an opinion on it, endorse it, defend it and share it with you?
-
I tend to find Sigmund Freud efforts on dealing with victims of post traumatic stress disorder meritorious but his ideas on Pens envy and the like sheer nonsense. Must I endorse or have to support both ideas?
Sheer nonsense indeed :thumbup:
-
:laugh:
-
I love it how you still haven't addressed Trump's campaign book ideas.
Oh well.
What campaign book and why would you imagine I would need to address them.
I tend to find Sigmund Freud efforts on dealing with victims of post traumatic stress disorder meritorious but his ideas on Penis envy and the like sheer nonsense. Must I endorse or have to support both ideas?
What idea have I not vouched an opinion on of Trump's and why do you believe I must have an opinion on it, endorse it, defend it and share it with you?
There, fixed.
Again, why do you imagine I must vouch an opinion on Trump's campaign book and endorse it and defend it to you? Ought I care? If so why? What opinion must I have and why? Why ought I feel compelled to share it with you? Why would I believe I needed t defend it?
-
So tell me again why you started a gazillion callout threads and went on and on about the same shit for months and months.
Or not. It's amusing how you want everyone else to back up their stuff but not when it comes to your shit. :yawn:
-
So tell me again why you started a gazillion callout threads and went on and on about the same shit for months and months.
Or not. It's amusing how you want everyone else to back up their stuff but not when it comes to your shit. :yawn:
What is my "own shit" that you want me to back up. This "campaign book" you want me to back up is not "my own shit'.
The first mention of it was from you. If it is anyone's "shit" I suppose it would be Donald trump's shit. After that, perhaps it may under some consideration be considered "your shit" as you bought the campaign book into the conversion and wish to talk about it. Me? I have no particular thoughts on it one way or another. So how this is suddenly me not backing myself, I have no idea.
Pretty stupid comment there, Odeon.
As to the comments that Trump made in a couple of interviews, that were expressing a concept, yes I agree in principle with them. So THAT is a position. Happy to defend that. If he later makes a different position or further expands on that. I am happy to comment on THAT new position and whether I think it is good bad or indifferent.
What would be stupid, is to get into your head that IF I agree with one idea he has that I must:
Agree with everything he says;
Support every possible ramification of the concept once put in practice;
Know what further implication or development the person who originally had conceived the idea would have;
Take ownership of this concept as my own idea and be responsible for developing the concept or putting it into practice;
Can uni-Mind with the person who had the idea in the first place to;
Have to agree with the idea's originator when they further develop the idea.
If you are expecting me to do any of the above, not only ought you brace yourself to be disappointed but you sure be embarrassed by what you are asking.
"YOU agreed with something someone said? That is it! You must know everything they have and will ever say and defend everything they say. Then if you can't I will accuse you of not proving your points"
That is how ridiculous your comment is. So now you are being ridiculous as well. First you lied and then you went to ridiculous absurdities.
The reason I start four callout threads (or was it a gazillion?) was because of YOU. You wanted a reaction from me and you got one. I was defending myself from insults you leveled unreasonably at me. In the midst of doing this you have thrown poor defend on top of poor defend and not only doubled down on your unreasonableness but also lied, made separate false claims against me and in one instance said you would no longer back yourself in a specific thread. All of these are reason enough for me to start a new callout against you.
As for months and months? And....? You wanted a reaction and you played for one, you got one. I'd have not done the same had I have been in your position but you made your choice to do so and so I do not think you ought to question the result now. This is a result of your actions.
What exactly are you finding "amusing" again?
-
Lots of things you've posted lately are amusing, in that slightly embarrassing way when somebody who's clearly not thought things through nevertheless opens his mouth. Things like the Trump idea you support, the one that you got wrong (don't know how but you did it), and how you have still to explain how that would be better than all those things that actually would help.
The fact that you support one of the greatest bigots the US has produced in later years is actually mostly sad. And here you are, claiming that I have changed... ::)
-
Lots of things you've posted lately are amusing, in that slightly embarrassing way when somebody who's clearly not thought things through nevertheless opens his mouth. Things like the Trump idea you support, the one that you got wrong (don't know how but you did it), and how you have still to explain how that would be better than all those things that actually would help.
The fact that you support one of the greatest bigots the US has produced in later years is actually mostly sad. And here you are, claiming that I have changed... ::)
May be amusing for you and that in itself points to a change in you.
I am not sure how much you have paid attention to Politicians lately or in the last 40 years but sometimes they lie .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
Its almost an expectation for example that the policies that politicians often promote to get elected never see the light of day once elected. It really ought not be the case but it is.
Sometimes Politicians will speak vaguely to give themselves room to "walk things back" or reclarify themselves or through intermediaries. Here is a prime example:
http://time.com/4390961/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-fbi-email-probe/
So from this we understand that "whatever" the FBI comes up with, that she will accept their judgement and soundness on that and place no other filter on it and rule on their determination, right?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lynch-taking-step-back-clinton-000000134.html
Hang on. So she is NOT deferring completely to the FBI. She is accepting their findings in as accepting the truth and veracity but will decide regardless?
Two totally different positions. Both her positions. Both in respect to the same idea. You may have a position on either. Which one was false and which was true? If you supported the first then you need not support the second and visa versa. What is more it would be the height of dishonesty and stupidity for someone to come along after the second statement was made and criticise another person of agreeing with the first position.
Does this make sense? Why the Fuck does it NOT make sense? The Odeon of a year ago would have understood this and I would not be needing to lay this all out.
Like Loretta, Donald had an idea and position taken. In his talks he gave a position, an idea, a concept. One I agree in principle with. Hot on the heels of the Orlando shootings, with an eye to having seen what other Islamic terrorist activities have happened in recent times in Europe, such as Brussels and Paris AND knowing that there are 900 U.S. BASED Islamic extremist active cases with the FBI, Donald couches the idea that maybe there are too few controls and we need to place a freeze on all Muslim immigration until America can better ensure the checks and balances of the Muslims coming into America to live are the ones who want to make America their home and not people wishing to come in to harm America from the inside.
I agree with that. We have EXCELLENT border security in Australia and we take border protection very seriously. Someone coming in illegally is going to find themselves in a detention centre. Someone committing crimes will not be given more favour based on being a refugee or an immigrant. Someone outstaying their welcome will be deported. Tough immigration and border control laws are not a crazy concept. You want to protect your country's citizens you are allowed to be particular and tough.
Now agreeing with this first position is not me getting him wrong. This is what he said and so even implying that I did get it wrong is stupid. You however have repeated over and over that I did get it wrong, for reasons that are not readily apparent. Like the example I provided of Loretta Lynch, Donald Trump has expanded and further clarified his position (you mentioned his site's position). You are expecting I have a position on this new clarification. But more than this you are saying because I had an opinion on the first position, I got it wrong because he clarified his position later into a new position that was different, and so I "apparently" must acknowledge I was wrong and endorse and agree with the second position.
Its really stupid. Dishonest and stupid.
This is how that plays with the Lynch example.
After the first position. Me: "Yay, good stuff. Lynch is too partisan to the Obama administration. He is her employer and is endorsing the person she is investigating. Let the FBI do their job and take their judgement."
You: "No that is completely wrong. I don't know how you got it that wrong. Clearly from this Yahoo article she is still the decider and is not meekly accepting the FBI findings. You are so wrong. She is still the Attorney General and where the buck stops. You are after all a dyed in the wool supporter of the US Attorney General and you agree with everything she says even though you get it so wrong hahaha"
Me: "No I did not get it wrong. Agreeing with a position of Lynch's does not make me a fan of her every pronouncement. No I do not need to support this new clarification, much less defend it. The fact she has clarified it does not have to change my opinions on the original position."
This is the sort of thing that is happening with my opinion on what Trump said. I know he will constantly reclarify things said. I can choose to agree with him on whatever or choose not to. Imagining that I am somehow tied to his every utterance or belief system is beyond insane.
As for me explaining how things will help. I have done that a number of times and you disagreed. I do not care that you disagreed but pretending I have not explained is simply you being dishonest again. Why are you being dishonest so much in recent times? The Odeon of past wasn't. What is going on?
Again, it is not something Odeon of a year ago would have done but then a LOT of dumb, dishonest or weak as piss stuff you have said on here in more recent times certainly dispels the expectation of a rational, honest and smart individual you were. I was disappointed. I am not so much now. It is the new status quo. If I am in your consideration, changed, it is due to you. You chose for a reaction and got one. Now this is what you have. Your plan worked.
-
Another amusing and completely misguided post. I'd love to know how the ban on Muslims entering the US is thought by you and Trump to in any way affect the active 900 terrorism investigation cases--of which most, but not all, are IS-related--but that's probably hoping for too much.
In the meanwhile, that figure is dwarfed by the current gun violence numbers, the vast majority of which have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. These numbers could be addressed by measures supported by a majority of the population but blocked by the pro-gun legislative body.
So yes, your posts are amusing but also quite sad because of how misguided they are.
-
Another amusing and completely misguided post. I'd love to know how the ban on Muslims entering the US is thought by you and Trump to in any way affect the active 900 terrorism investigation cases--of which most, but not all, are IS-related--but that's probably hoping for too much.
In the meanwhile, that figure is dwarfed by the current gun violence numbers, the vast majority of which have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. These numbers could be addressed by measures supported by a majority of the population but blocked by the pro-gun legislative body.
So yes, your posts are amusing but also quite sad because of how misguided they are.
Laugh, lie, project, or do as you feel fit.
Its pretty clear the answer to that question, isn't it? I mean think about it. They have 900 potential Islamic Extremist active cases in America. That is by Comey's admission. By his own admission they had investigated Omar Mateen twice. By Clare Lopez's own admission, there is glaring problems when accepting refugees from counties such as Syria because not only is ISIS actively placing their members in with refugees as a form of radicalised hijra but the authorities ability to do due diligence and cross reference potential immigrants is compromised with the fact that the records that could conceivably be available are difficult to cross-check in warring regions from a nation or a state's infrastructure.
So increasing the amount of people you have coming in will have exactly two effects. More decent Muslims (majority) wanting to escape the horrors of war and make America their new home AND an increase of poorly checked radicalised extremist Muslims (dangerous minority) with violence and harm to America on their minds.
Keeping it the same will mean that they are coming in at the same rate.
Placing a freeze on it will mean that more focus can be done to improve vetting systems and to clean up the 900 active cases, before the freeze is lifted and (with better checks in place) they start accepting Muslim immigrants again.
But this is what I have already mentioned and you disagreed with it then too. I disagree with your assessment and I did then too. I believe your open borders "Come on through", flash them a smile and send the nastier element to where your women and children are swimming, is wrong. You need to be a little particular and stringent. It is a nation's prerogative. No one has a right to immigrant anywhere they want because they want to. It is a request, that may be accepted or denied. Its important that there is a real and clear acknowledgement and understanding that it is not a right, it is a privilege.
Out of interest if Omar had decided to kill those gays in the nightclub and had no access to a gun and used instead fire or a pipe bomb or a chemical fume attack or what have you, how exactly would gun control measure either stopped him hurting so many OR stopped him wanting to kill gays?
There is nothing misguided about my post, it is just that you are incapable of understanding it.
-
A couple of things you have still to understand (hence "misguided"):
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did. Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy. But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.
I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.
-
A couple of things you have still to understand (hence "misguided"):
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did. Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy. But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.
I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.
....and you went with lie.
I am going to ask you a serious question. "Are you an idiot?" Don't be too quick in answering. let me make a quick case
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did.
As I have mentioned this in several posts that this IS a position of his "to ban all Muslims" and is on his website as you pointed out HOWEVER (pay attention this time) his initial position before the reclarification (that he gave in speeches) was that he wished to place a freeze on Muslim Immigrants. I agreed in principle with the initial position. I have not vouched an opinion for this new position (as a result of him reclarifying an older position) but you seem to want me to agree or disavow it.
This is NOT "getting it wrong" is it? Only an idiot would suggest that, right?
As mentioned If person X makes position A and person Y agrees with person X on position A, that in itself is COMPLETELY separate to if Person X then reclarifies or alters position A to come up to a new position B.
Given this, does person Y need to agree with position B? Can they if they wish?
Too hard?
You seem incapable of seeing that agreeing with one position that a person takes is NOT IN ANY WAY rubberstamping everything they say forever and ever, based in the fact they agree with them on a or even several positions.
Some may say that is lazy thinking or even intellectual dishonesty. I call that being an idiot? What would you call that?
Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.
Suggesting motive is one thing. We all do it and we can second guess people. Depending on our intellectual rigour and instinct we may have a good strike rate of getting it right.
You are not suggesting, you are trying to make a fact based assertion. When exactly did you last chat with Donald Trump? You have made a few assertions here. Can you please tell me if not having a conversion with Donald, did you speak to his aides? Did you perhaps have mindreading equipment?
No? Just throwing out big assertions as fact based claims based on bullshit and expecting me to just nod my head? Do you think THAT is idiotic?
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy.
I am not bigoted and you have not made a case for that. Best you can say at present without trying to lie or pad your assertions with bullshit is to say that I agreed with what Donald trump said about Muslim immigration. I think that in cases where a threat does seem to be present in ANY group, nation, religion or whatever then there HAS to be an upgrade to the security to check this.
Now we can disagree as to the degree of threat or how good the current security is all day. but I have good reason to think that the last few years has given rise to a lot more attacks on European soil by Muslim radical extremists and this has aligned with the relaxed border policies. I also know that 900 active cases with the FBI of US based Islamic extremist issues, and apparent difficulties cross-referencing incoming migrants due to them fleeing a nation under conflict and with poor infrastructure and records access. I also know that the Orlando shooter was checked out twice with the FBI and no apparent action taken against him. They dropped the ball in my belief.
So I have my reasoning for suspecting that there is a heightened risk and poor methods of vetting potential risks. Therefore I believe this cannot be addressed by carrying on business as normal. IF there is a way to hold this process and tightened up and better rework the vetting methods (and Hell maybe directing some resources to clearing up the 900 cases before another Orlando gunman gets away from them), then it makes sense this ought to be pursued.
That is not bigoted. Only an idiot would think so.
As to whether this idea could work out in a practical way rather than being a good theory, I don't know and would be interested how this could be done. I see a lot of problems in the practicalities and possible implementation, including belief of Islam being exactly that. Denouncing you are a Muslim to come in for example would seem to sidestep this freeze.
I agree in principle with the idea and happy to look at other ideas as to solving the problem, but not at all interested in saying it is not a problem. For all your talk of falling furniture death, I think that would be little concern to Parisians after the Paris attacks for example. IF some radical Islamic extremist attack happens in Sweden do I have your permission to make some off-hand remark about at least they weren't squashed by a bookcase? No?
So being that I am not bigoted the statement ....
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy.
.... makes no sense. I do not agree with what you effectively have said you are disagreeing with and so how could I agree to something I inherently disagree with being equivalent or comparable to something else? No, it would be idiotic to expect I would give such an assertion any credibility. You may wish to take a run up and try again.
But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.
Speaking about what one does not know, you make the accusation of me lying.
The fact that my suggestion that America can minimise attacks on its citizens by tightening its borders and freezing Muslim immigration until such time that it can improve its vetting systems and clear up its 900 active US based cases of Islamic extremism, you call bigoted.
You suggested rather than further addressing the threat that the threat was less great than falling furniture and that there was no issue in Sweden despite your open border policies and despite the fact that I mentioned the heightened female rape (and yes your rebuke still showed at more than double that of US and UK - which again is higher than Australian rates) and the pool crisis both of which made international news (in fact now your music festivals the last few years running have been targeted [30 this last one just gone] by groups of foreign men in groups of 10 isolating and sexually assaulting teenage girls - sound familiar - Cologne) you waved it off as of no real concern.
So at this stage, we can agree or disagree but you are demonstrating by your response an acceptance of the status quo in Sweden in respect to immigration and the movement of people and you back this by pounding on about treaties. So you honestly think that it somehow seems like me lying about you agreeing with the open border policies of Sweden (especially as I contrasted them against the border policies of Australia). No you only would think this if you were an idiot. I don't know that you honestly do, maybe you are just lying again.
I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.
Title 8 US codes 1182
Its constitutional.
They have made various arguments against our detention Centres. Not buying it.
So now far from ME being misguided or "needing to understand".... "are you an idiot?"
If not that is fine, how did you get EVERYTHING so very wrong.
-
Here is a bit of different point of view from someone else with far more social capital than I, who is in the know about the threat of migrating Muslim extremists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqXVdiT7pdY
-
This is typically you--you still mistake quantity for an actual argument.
Banning Muslims from entering the US is bigotry because it's an ineffectual action against a group of people based on misguided fears and wholly without any support from any kind of logical reasoning. Don't like being a bigot? You can change.
-
This is typically you--you still mistake quantity for an actual argument.
Banning Muslims from entering the US is bigotry because it's an ineffectual action against a group of people based on misguided fears and wholly without any support from any kind of logical reasoning. Don't like being a bigot? You can change.
Incorrect. You have "getting it wrong", down to a fine art.
At this stage, reverting continually to the argument I NEVER made about Banning Muslims from the US is EITHER you being a moron or dishonest. Which? You choose one? Happy with either.
You do not want to be liar or to be dishonest? You should be able to change. If it is stupidity, I do not have good news for you.
Now if you want to talk about my agreement with the idea of temporarily freezing Muslim immigration whilst measures are done to increase the quality of vetting immigrants and taking care of US Based Islamic extremism - then THAT is NOT Bigoted. I know you believe it, but it isn't. I know that you think that if processes are not up to speed too bad. I don't
You've yet to make a case. "I disagree" is not "you are a bigot". You are an idiot if you think so.
You do not believe in the extent of the problem of Muslim radical extremism being as big an issue. You think falling furniture is a bigger problem. I think your reading of things is bereft of all rationality. I long to hear a report that is as big in the media and international news reporting on the hateful acts of dangerous sofa beds as I do the acts of radicalised Muslim extremists. I do not think it is going to happen.
Now you perhaps feel similarly about me? (God only knows really knows what passes through your mind lately?)
None of that is a case for bigotry. In the same way that Australia does not allow illegal immigrants straight into society and they spend years in Detention Centres is not bigotry.
I have shown the Constitutionality of this and I have shown the reasoning and I have even had a world famous ex-Muslim scholar and activist echoing the real issue with radicalised Islamic extremism with hijrah Migration. You wish to shrug shoulder and default to "You are just a racist", makes you at the very least deliberately ignorant and a liar at worst.
Make a case for me being a bigot, but trying to impress me with positions I have not taken will not do it.
Neither will showing that you have a different point of view.
Neither will saying that the vetting process is better than I think it is. Nor will treating the issue of guns in the US like they are the be all and end all of radicalised Muslim domestic violence (take away their access to assault rifles and you stop their ability - or perhaps their desire - to kill masses of Americans).
Nor will stating that the threat of radicalised Muslim extremists within refugee and illegal Muslim immigrant populations is minimal or minimised .
All of this will certainly point to a difference of opinion. But it does not show that I am a bigot. Are you going to make a case for me being a bigot? My Muslim friends do not believe I am and I wonder whether I am better listening to them or listening to you? Maybe THEY are bigots against Muslims too?
-
I've already explained why your opinions amount to bigotry. You, on the other hand, have yet to show how banning the Muslims (all of them is what Trump says, remember, and you think his ideas are reasonable) from entering the US would help anything, and obviously you won't since you can't. Only an idiot would disagree.
As for the furniture that kills, it's not me saying so, it is a somewhat bizarre fact. There are lots of other such examples, of course, and one of the more obvious ones is, wait for it... gun-related violence.
Which you don't want to hear about. Apparently you'd rather stop Muslims than stop a very real problem that is killing tens of thousands of people every year. And that's just stupid.
-
I've already explained why your opinions amount to bigotry. You, on the other hand, have yet to show how banning the Muslims (all of them is what Trump says, remember, and you think his ideas are reasonable) from entering the US would help anything, and obviously you won't since you can't. Only an idiot would disagree.
As for the furniture that kills, it's not me saying so, it is a somewhat bizarre fact. There are lots of other such examples, of course, and one of the more obvious ones is, wait for it... gun-related violence.
Which you don't want to hear about. Apparently you'd rather stop Muslims than stop a very real problem that is killing tens of thousands of people every year. And that's just stupid.
You, on the other hand, have yet to show how banning the Muslims (all of them is what Trump says, remember, and you think his ideas are reasonable) from entering the US would help anything, and obviously you won't since you can't.
And.....this is what I have EVER argued. No? Who the fuck are you arguing then? And I think his ideas are reasonable. Only a absolute idiot would think that anyone would agree with everything someone else said or would ever say. Are you that absolute idiot?
Yes or no?
You have yet to show why I will have any position on Trump wanting to ban all Muslims from entering the US. This is not his initial position nor one that I have proffered an opinion on. Regardless of whether he says that now it is not what he initially said and no what I have said seemed like a reasonable position. And no, at this point it is not simply you misunderstanding because I have explained this point to you three or four times.
So are you an idiot to keep bringing up a point that I have given no opinion and call me a bigot for views that I have not offered? YES. The only other alternative is that you are lying and that you did understand but want to double down on your dishonesty. Either way I am along for the ride and seeing where you will go with this.
Only an idiot would disagree.
Moot point as I never had that position and not inclined to defend it or offer an opinion on it, and only an idiot would imagine that I may feel obliged to do so. It would also need an idiot to assume that if someone agrees with someone else on one thing that they say, that they are best mates or agree with them on everything they say or will say.
I've already explained why your opinions amount to bigotry.
No you have been a little outraged over what Trump put on his site about banning Muslims into America. This is a position of his. One of at least three that he has had around this topic. You are offended over it and believe it is bigoted. It may or may not be.
I have yet to see you make any effort to show MY bigotry.
Again, only an idiot would say so. In fact it makes it harder to do so on the basis that I have been ABSOLUTELY clear on what I agree with and why.
As for the furniture that kills, it's not me saying so, it is a somewhat bizarre fact. There are lots of other such examples, of course, and one of the more obvious ones is, wait for it... gun-related violence.
Again, I will ask this very simple question and I want you to give me an answer.
"We have seen that with radical Muslims extremists immigrating through a radicalised hijrah, increased terrorist actions in the heart of Europe, such as Brussels and Paris and the like, so when they occur in Sweden am I able to say "Well considering the risk that falling furniture has, at least they were not squashed by a sofa bed"?"
I mean at the moment Sweden is considered internationally as the "Rape capital of the World" and has also made headlines recently for suspiciously Taharrush type incidents at Swedish music festivals (most recently in Karlstad) and in your swimming pools. But falling furniture is a real bastard.
You know what neither falling furniture nor guns has? An ideology. A mindset. A degree of hate and a wish to do harm to others.
Which you don't want to hear about. Apparently you'd rather stop Muslims than stop a very real problem that is killing tens of thousands of people every year. And that's just stupid.
No, I would rather not treat gun violence as the REASON FOR the attacks on Orlando. It was a method not a reason for harm. It is entirely up to the Americans to do what ever they like about guns. Australians came up with a solution we predominantly agreed with. Suits us.
Trying to obfuscate one issue of radicalised Muslim extremism and the threat it presents with gun control is simply dishonest. Omar Mateen used a gun, take away his ability to legally own a gun and he could have got one illegally. Take away his method to ever obtain a gun and those people in the nightclub would still not have been safe because he hated them and targeted them. He would have killed or hurt them through arson, chemical attack, pipe bombs or something else.
You can make a separate argument about how much you hate guns it has fuck all to do with ideology of hate or whether hateful radicalised Muslims extremists will kill.
How many people were saved in the Paris attacks as a result of their gun controls? How many lives were saved by virtue that guns were not allowed?
Your arguments are redundant. You are being stupid. I would like to think you are deliberately so.
-
I love it how gun nutters always add things like "then the killer would have obtained the weapon illegally".
I also love it when bigots attempt to justify their bigotry by referring to the dangers of radical Islam.
Both are just so laughably weak, devoid of any rationality. You've come a long way lately, mate.
-
I love it how gun nutters always add things like "then the killer would have obtained the weapon illegally".
I also love it when bigots attempt to justify their bigotry by referring to the dangers of radical Islam.
Both are just so laughably weak, devoid of any rationality. You've come a long way lately, mate.
I love seeing your willingness to dismiss out of hand anything you do not wish to consider as bigotry.
You have accused me of being a bigot and the only two reason I have seen for it are one position Donald Trump has expressed towards Muslims that I have not proffered an opinion on, and because you said so. Again seems the lack of rationality is on your end not mine.
As for what seems to be a shot at me being a "gun nut" seems to be illogical in the extreme. Do I have a gun? No? Do I read up on guns? No? Do I have any relationship with guns? Am I from a country where guns are in great supply? Is my culture one that holds the right to own guns as almost sacrosanct? No? Have I ever even fired a gun? Yes...a couple of times in 1983.
"Gun nut"? Pretty stupid, huh?
I mean all of the above is pretty fucking stupid. The only thing you are laughing at is your self as your opinions quoted above have no bearing on me and make you look like an idiot.
That all said, let's humour you at least a little. Sure nothing that you said applies to me but I will entertain it anyhow.
You love how radical Muslim extremists get weapons anyhow? You love how other people believe they do or they can? Well...okay? So was the weapons in the Paris attacks legal? Obtained legally? What about the weapons used in London attacks? Brussels? Boston? Help me out here.
So you think perhaps that if a radical Muslim extremist who targeted in advance gays at a nightclub to kill, that taking away his legal right to own a gun would magic away the threat? That sounds silly to me but its your chance to tell me how these nutters are wrong.
(Personally what Americans choose to do about their guns is on them. I simply offer the opinion that someone with murder on their mind and who goes to the extent to target and plan a mass murder will likely not give up if guns are taken away. As much as guns may or may not be an issue in America, it is an absolutely different issue than the threat of radicalised Muslim extremists. It is a cop out of the highest order to try to relate the two to obfuscate the two separate issues).
That leaves the dangers of radical Islam. No danger, huh? Oh well. There we go. No need to even check passports now. Thank God. See I thought that the Brussels and Paris attacks were real it seems it was all a prank. Good one all. Yes, America ought not even check the records for incoming immigrants who are Muslim. Let them all in. 900 active cases of active US-Based radical Islamist extremists? No problem, drop the cases, that was obviously not an issue because some guy on I2 proclaimed it so.
No? All of that would be a BAD idea? What? Their IS a threat and you just do not believe it is as big as some do? Well, well, that hardly makes the case for being bigoted or not does it? Only a moron or a liar would say so.
Which are you Odeon?
-
Still lying and misrepresenting what I say, I see. Also love it how you ignore the numbers, how you conveniently avoid the hard facts. Here's another one for you to avoid:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VlxMQI1HY48/Vg8ZN-hD5eI/AAAAAAAAHLo/kqrjEzq5E44/s1600/Terrorism%2BVs%2BGun%2BViolence%2BDeaths%2Bin%2BAmerica.png)
Only an idiot would ignore the numbers in this one, don't you think?
Of course, only an idiot would only ever try to do anything about only one of them, but banning all Muslims from entering the US is about as effective as banning IKEA from importing their furniture to prevent those nasty furniture-related deaths.
Only an idiot, and a bigoted one at that, would propose anything like that.
-
Oh, and go right ahead. A few thousand words in your next post should be enough to hide how embarrassing your opinions really are.
-
And while I'm at it:
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/8499-What-Adolf-Hitler-Can-Teach-Us-About-Our-View-of-Muslim-Immigrants
-
Still lying and misrepresenting what I say, I see. Also love it how you ignore the numbers, how you conveniently avoid the hard facts. Here's another one for you to avoid:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VlxMQI1HY48/Vg8ZN-hD5eI/AAAAAAAAHLo/kqrjEzq5E44/s1600/Terrorism%2BVs%2BGun%2BViolence%2BDeaths%2Bin%2BAmerica.png)
Only an idiot would ignore the numbers in this one, don't you think?
Of course, only an idiot would only ever try to do anything about only one of them, but banning all Muslims from entering the US is about as effective as banning IKEA from importing their furniture to prevent those nasty furniture-related deaths.
Only an idiot, and a bigoted one at that, would propose anything like that.
Again, WHEN there is a Swedish specific incident of the likes of Brussels or Paris, I expect you to take it all with good humour when I crack tasteless jokes about the falling furniture. I expect you to laugh along with me.
I will tell you what only an idiot would do. Only an idiot would confuse "radical Muslim extremism" with a argument about "gun violence". I have not made that mistake.
What the Americans choose to do with their guns and their gun laws is completely up to them. The impact on their issues surrounding US based radical Islamic extremism and difficulties vetting Muslim immigrants that are radical extremists from those that are not, is non-existent, as it relates to guns. They are two different topics. Happy to share my opinion on both but I am not going to pretend they are inexorably connected. They aren't. They connections are not that much greater than IKEA furniture.
Now as to looking at why people may commit mass murder against American citizens.
* Mental health
* Gang related
* Radicalised Islamic Terrorism
* School Bullying
Looking at these things is important. If you are not pro-active with keeping on top of gangs then gang violence will run rampant. If you shit down Mental health clinics and your ability to service the mentally ill in your community fails, you are going to have people become a danger to themselves or others in higher numbers. If you are able to address school bullying well enough, you are less likely to get the incidences or kids trying to kill other kids. If you increase and better your vetting processes and if you take care of 900 US-based Islamic extremism cases then you may reduce the chance of another Tamerlan Tsarnaev or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev or Omar Mateen or Syed Rizwan Farook or Tashfeen Malik or Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.
Gun control is a separate issue and one that the Americans can make up their minds about but regardless of what they do it will not stop this kind of radicalised Islamic extremist violence. Will it stop those hateful individuals making pressure cooker bombs like the Boston bombers made or the pipe bombs that the San Bernadino made? Would it stop them targeting whom they targeted? What would it have actually prevented? Do you think that Omar Mateen would have left the gays at the Pulse alone if he had no legal firearm? Do you think he would have done less damage to them that night without one? Do you think he may have moved on and put those hateful idea away?
You can have an argument about gun violence or the ills of falling furniture. I am not a party to that and my wish not to be a party to that is not me being bigoted. The two have pretty much nothing to do with each other.
-
And while I'm at it:
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/8499-What-Adolf-Hitler-Can-Teach-Us-About-Our-View-of-Muslim-Immigrants
Read it and unimpressed.
Some people hate all Muslims. Its not too hard to find people who are intolerant. People that will judge everyone of a particular race, sex, sexual preference, religion, nationality as all being the same.
I have yet to see what this unsurprising revelation has to do with anything. Do you think that Donald Trump or the majority of the American public supporting him or myself has anything against the moderate Muslim that makes America their home OR (pay attention) do they have very real concerns with the type of people that may Bomb airports (like Brussels), Bomb cities (London Bombings), bomb a celebrated city's marathon (Boston bombings), Muslim rape gangs (Rothertham rape gangs), or perhaps this http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/cologne-is-every-day-europes-rape-epidemic/news-story/e2e618e17ad4400b5ed65045e65e141d ?
IF these things ARE real and are a result of radicalised Muslim extremism NOT moderate Islamic beliefs, then where is the danger and the concern and is it justified that Americans may not want it in their country? You already have it, your swimming pools are now gender segregated apparently to stop the sexual assaults on young girls and women and your music festivals are making headlines for all the wrong reasons. Your nation has the dubious headline of being the rape capital of the world. ALL as a result of badly vetted Muslim immigration and open borders policy. You are not in a position to really act outraged. Swedes have let their country turn into the rape capital of the world and now you would see fit to tell others in the world how they can keep THEIR citizens safe? Get off your moral high horse and do not think that a person making attempts (no matter how inept they are or are not or how practical they are) to address a system you refuse to take seriously even when it is hurting your own country's women and children, is bigoted because they are working on ways to distinguish decent Muslims from radical Islamic extremists that are hurting countries like yours.
Great chat, Odeon. Keep your family away from your rock concerts and swimming pools at a minimum.
-
Oh, and go right ahead. A few thousand words in your next post should be enough to hide how embarrassing your opinions really are.
Embarrassing or confronting? If the best you can do is to say "You are a bigot" when I disagree with you and then are unable to make serious points against me. I talk about what Trump said about wanting to freeze Muslim immigration whilst he attends to improving the vetting systems and processes, you point to what he said later about wanting to ban All Muslims. I don't and have not had a position on that so I am not defending or moved by any of your efforts to bang on about it. not interested in it. Speak to someone that is.
Next you try the gun violence problem. The "gun violence problem" is not an issue I am overly interested in. I am not interested in that either. That issue is not the radical Islamic extremist issue so again, not that interested.
I think the reason you try to distract with these red herrings is NOT because you are embarrassed by this, but rather because you find it confront and NOT because it is bigoted but because it makes too much sense to refute. If you could you would but you can't so you try red herrings and accusations of bigotry.
Weak.
-
I'm so sick to death of this shit that I have decided to spam it going forward. Will remain boring to everyone else, but will at least entertain ME!
(Really, is anything more important than that?)
-
I'm thinking Star Trek fan fiction.
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/culture_test/star%20trek%20fan%20fic%20650.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRuWkgse_M712RYtvj89LE4wuDqdajA4Dmv5rdU60PAHUZ6MId7)
(http://dfep0xlbws1ys.cloudfront.net/thumbs54/0b/540b7121b25ee2305de04b5c3cb01d9b.jpg)
-
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/william-shatner-opens-up-deathbed-864547
I do not think there was any romantic affiliations.
On another note. Odeon is full of shit lately.
-
Relief is possible, for the brave. (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,6546.0.html)
:meditate:
Others may need to seek help from the not yet emerged forum proctologist.
-
Relief is possible, for the brave. (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,6546.0.html)
:meditate:
Others may need to seek help from the not yet emerged forum proctologist.
I do not need relief nor a proctologist
-
Still lying and misrepresenting what I say, I see. Also love it how you ignore the numbers, how you conveniently avoid the hard facts. Here's another one for you to avoid:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VlxMQI1HY48/Vg8ZN-hD5eI/AAAAAAAAHLo/kqrjEzq5E44/s1600/Terrorism%2BVs%2BGun%2BViolence%2BDeaths%2Bin%2BAmerica.png)
Only an idiot would ignore the numbers in this one, don't you think?
Of course, only an idiot would only ever try to do anything about only one of them, but banning all Muslims from entering the US is about as effective as banning IKEA from importing their furniture to prevent those nasty furniture-related deaths.
Only an idiot, and a bigoted one at that, would propose anything like that.
Again, WHEN there is a Swedish specific incident of the likes of Brussels or Paris, I expect you to take it all with good humour when I crack tasteless jokes about the falling furniture. I expect you to laugh along with me.
I will tell you what only an idiot would do. Only an idiot would confuse "radical Muslim extremism" with a argument about "gun violence". I have not made that mistake.
What the Americans choose to do with their guns and their gun laws is completely up to them. The impact on their issues surrounding US based radical Islamic extremism and difficulties vetting Muslim immigrants that are radical extremists from those that are not, is non-existent, as it relates to guns. They are two different topics. Happy to share my opinion on both but I am not going to pretend they are inexorably connected. They aren't. They connections are not that much greater than IKEA furniture.
Now as to looking at why people may commit mass murder against American citizens.
* Mental health
* Gang related
* Radicalised Islamic Terrorism
* School Bullying
Looking at these things is important. If you are not pro-active with keeping on top of gangs then gang violence will run rampant. If you shit down Mental health clinics and your ability to service the mentally ill in your community fails, you are going to have people become a danger to themselves or others in higher numbers. If you are able to address school bullying well enough, you are less likely to get the incidences or kids trying to kill other kids. If you increase and better your vetting processes and if you take care of 900 US-based Islamic extremism cases then you may reduce the chance of another Tamerlan Tsarnaev or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev or Omar Mateen or Syed Rizwan Farook or Tashfeen Malik or Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.
Gun control is a separate issue and one that the Americans can make up their minds about but regardless of what they do it will not stop this kind of radicalised Islamic extremist violence. Will it stop those hateful individuals making pressure cooker bombs like the Boston bombers made or the pipe bombs that the San Bernadino made? Would it stop them targeting whom they targeted? What would it have actually prevented? Do you think that Omar Mateen would have left the gays at the Pulse alone if he had no legal firearm? Do you think he would have done less damage to them that night without one? Do you think he may have moved on and put those hateful idea away?
You can have an argument about gun violence or the ills of falling furniture. I am not a party to that and my wish not to be a party to that is not me being bigoted. The two have pretty much nothing to do with each other.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/664977/Sweden-terror-warning-US-embassy-avoid-crowded-places-festivals
Your turn to find the International news media telling people going to Sweden to avoid falling Ikea. The heightened risk ought to make that rather easy, right Odeon?
-
If it makes you feel better Odeon, you are not the only Swede that minimises the radical Islamic threat to your country and minimises the internationally highlighted immigrant rape crisis.
http://theduran.com/feminist-politician-says-swedish-men-rape-choice-migrants-rape-ignorance/
-
That woman is a moron, if those are her words. (My knowledge of Swedish is almost non existent). Rape is rape.
It's bloody bigoted, singling Muslims out that way. Rape is a power game.
Keeping possible victims of rape inside and escorted all the time is the other side of the same power game.
-
^
Oh, I'm saying that as a feminist. :hyke: :hyke: :hyke:
-
^
Oh, I'm saying that as a feminist. :hyke: :hyke: :hyke:
I would agree with you. It does not seem that this is a singular thought in Sweden either
https://www.barritrad.com/swedish-feminists-please-dont-protect-us-get-raped-immigrants/
It is what I was saying before. Being liberal and open and inclusive and accepting, are great ideals. But there has to be a want to protect yourself. If as a nation your ideological and cultural forces push a want to do these things and minimise harm to your citizens....its kind of a big deal.
The risk of being called a bigot for pointing out uncomfortable truths in such an environment seems to me to be a risk worth taking.
Pretending that there is never any real issue worth addressing does not seem the better option. Saying "Being called the rape capital of the world is undeserved" is A way of dealing with the issue but not the best way. Giving out "Don't grope braclets" as a way of highlighting the issue of the sexual assaults and rapes at Swedish music concerts and finding out at the end the 4 rapes and 30 sexual assaults were by men wearing said bracelets". To have "groping guards" in a swimming pool specifically to stop immigrants from sexually assault young girls and women, before decided that does work and resorting to gender segregated times at the swimming pool to stop this happening, is terrible.
What is worse is to say there is no real issue. What is worse is to collectively and as a nation fail to protect the women and children of the nation from a real threat based on an ideology. Though the falling furniture analogies was never particularly clever.
This is certainly not to say that all Muslims rape. It is not going close to saying that. It IS saying that whilst there is moderate Muslims wanting to adopt the host country's customs and values and assimilate and integrate into the society, there is a scary dangerous element that does not. These people ARE a problem and minimising their effect on a nation is outrageously bad. Comparing their effect to falling furniture or distracting with gun violence, is crazy.
If though we can accept that in many countries (and Sweden is notable but not exclusive) in Europe are having this issue with poorly vetted Muslim migrants and issues of Muslims (unlike the moderate respectful Muslims wanting to make the host nation their home), then it would be crazy for someone from a country that is now facing such terrible problems to advise or condemn another country's harsh proposal for border protection.
Open and inclusive and accepting only goes so far before it gets taken advantage of.
Belgium is hardly in a position to scold other countries for example on their heightened airport screening. Germany would be remiss if they tried to tell other countries how to keep women and girls safe on New Years Eve celebrations.
The "well, our country may have gone to Hell but at least we did not compromise of values or give the impression that we were racist, xenophobic or Islamaphobic" doesn't impress me much. I think even were you to compromise on such values, the country's citizens are more important and the ability to address real problems. We do that in Australia too.
Its all about minimising harm (in the form of better vetting and zero tolerance policies) and being willing to identify actual issues as they come up (before you have to disclaim international media headlines about your country).
-
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?
-
I'm thinking Star Trek fan fiction.
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/culture_test/star%20trek%20fan%20fic%20650.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRuWkgse_M712RYtvj89LE4wuDqdajA4Dmv5rdU60PAHUZ6MId7)
(http://dfep0xlbws1ys.cloudfront.net/thumbs54/0b/540b7121b25ee2305de04b5c3cb01d9b.jpg)
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):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0bClUp9I6w
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. :nerdy:
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?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nSKkwzwdW4
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
"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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqXVdiT7pdY
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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQf20ep5BxU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfRoWoDzCGo
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
"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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
Yes people disagree with the constitutionality of detention centres that Australians utilise for refugees, but it has stood the test of time and has not caused to break down of any treaties.
Legal experts disagree on the constitutionality of the proposal, btw, mainly because those arriving at the US borders may not be US citizens.
:dunce:
Title 8 US code 1182 was written in 1952. Jimmy Carter used it to bar entry to the US by Iranians and to deport Iranians that were here. It is constitutional (as in it is IN the constitution). So you can fall over yourself to try to reinterpret the constitution and its meaning in the same way some "scholars" try to reinterpret the "right to bear arms" amendment, but its already there and has precedent.
I am NOT targeting anyone truth be told BUT if you are asking if the specifics of the idea Trump gave in his speeches (of fixing the vetting process and placing a freeze on Muslim immigration until they do), THAT sounds to me fine. It may be impractical and I would like to see how they would manage that but I am agreeing in principle with it.
Now if you are asking whether this concept targets ALL Muslims, well no it doesn't. If you are not trying to migrate to US it doesn't. If you are not a radical Muslim extremist it doesn't target you either, though due to the inability to vet you it will temporarily inconvenience you along with the radicalised extremists that it IS targeted against. You will have to wait a little longer or find a home elsewhere until the system is fixed.
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"
Do I just?
Trump is a blowhard, arrogant, boorish, entitled, opinionated, idiot who gambles with his and other people's money and is happy to risk a company or personal bankrupt, he is VERY unsuited to being a President.
HOWEVER
Hilary is worse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
Liar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY
Criminal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueDWLP2nOtU
Corrupt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj2UKZmCXOw
Personal emails for state business?
Trump is awful. Hilary is evil.
:trump:
See from my vantage point I have certainly said that Hillary is evil and Donald Trump is awful....awful is hardly "I support Donald Trump". Agreeing in principle with a position he had on an idea is NOT supporting HIM. Idiots believe this black and white "If you believe something that someone says you believe in them and everything they say"
Are you an idiot? Yes or No? :dunce:
The fact he has at one point said "All Muslims this or that" means what? Did I agree or disagree with those statements or have an opinion on them at all? No? Either pretty disingenuous or pretty fucking stupid you keeping on bring up something I have not had an opinion on, right? Yes or No? :dunce:
(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)
"Not BTW" How about you make it up as you go along? He said he wants to to fix vetting system and that he wants to place a freeze on things until it is fixed.
You CAN by all means argue that there should be some idea of timelines or how he will measure this or what constituents improvement.....and i have already done this myself. I think the idea is fine in principle but I want specifics too. I may choose to agree on them or not.
What would be idiotic, is to say "Well he did say that, but he didn't mean it. No the fact that the FBI are apparently getting some things wrong, means they have no way of ever improving things, and if they are not improving things then there is no way he will ever, ever, ever, lift the freeze." :tinfoil: :dunce:
But is the vetting system and the due diligence of FBI up to scratch? The short answer is no and you, yourself have acknowledged that they are not really doing a bang up job.
If Hillary walking after their investigations was not enough recent fodder, then certainly this should be a concern
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/refugee/rhq/rhqapr16.pdf
One in every five refugees settle in Minnesota
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2016/advising-travelers-with-specific-needs/newly-arrived-immigrants-refugees
and
http://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/measles/index.php
22 new cases of Measles.
Yup, and if we tack this on to the nearly 1000 US based Islamic extremist cases that are currently active investigations and the fact that both Omar Mateen and the San Bernadino whilst referred and investigated were ultimately dropped as active cases for investigation....yes they definitely need an overhaul.
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.
Appeal to popularity?
You have yet to actually show me what IS bigoted and narrow-minded NOR a better alternative. This is because you are emotional. You
- Making the claim I was bigoted
- Like your claim that I support Donald Trump
- Like your continued want to bring up his campaign book and what he has said on immigration after the position I agreed in principle with and trying to tie me to THAT position for some reason
- Like your want to try to point out impracticality to his idea that I have already bought up
is demonstrative that it was only ever an emotional argument.
IF it was a rational argument you would have: been honest, attacked what I said not what I didn't, shown why what I said was incorrect, and perhaps shown a better alternative. You did none of this. You went straight to "bigot" and then when you found this untenable tried to introduce stuff that had no bearing on what I said to try to pad your position. Saying I support Trump rather than I support a position of Trump and dislike him less than Hillary, may sound stronger but it is incorrect.
Saying that I agree with later or re-clarified positions of his may again make a stronger case (IF the new position is a more difficult one to defend) but is simply introducing a brand new position and trying to substitute it for the one I offered an opinion on. Its a bait and switch. Its weak and you are caught doing it. I will not be baited by it or allow you to switch it. Why did you multiple times attempt to bait and switch even after I demonstrated that you were doing this and clarified exactly what I was and was not defending? Being that you knew and did it any way, are you an idiot or dishonest AND an idiot? :dunce:
No Odeon, you get to argue the argument I made, not the one you wanted me to make, and not for the intentions you would have preferred I had but for the ones I had. Call me a bigot, you get to back that shit up. I do not care that you got emotional and made your position harder to rationalise or argue. Back your shit up. No more being disingenuous, dishonest, or stupid. It is not cute. You do not get to change the argument to better suit, and you do not act stupid or confused to obfuscate your way away from dumb, emotional claims you made. None of that is backing yourself. At Intensitysquared.com you ought to back yourself and as commander in chief of this little site, you ought to lead from the front. Call ANY of your members here bigots. None of us are shrinking violets. This site is predicated on free speech BUT it has one rule...back yourself. Not hide, not bait and switch to easy arguments to defend, not lie, not be disingenuous, not redefine words or phrases to what you want them to mean when called on it. Back yourself. :dunce:
-
Advocating to temporarily stop the immigration of an entire group of people defined by their religion because of a vanishingly small minority supposedly belonging to that group might be terrorists is bigoted, like it or not. There is no proof that the ban would help stop terrorism, but a lot to suggest it wouldn't.
There, I've backed it up. Again.
Oh, and Trump said:
Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.
-
Advocating to temporarily stop the immigration of an entire group of people defined by their religion because of a vanishingly small minority supposedly belonging to that group might be terrorists is bigoted, like it or not. There is no proof that the ban would help stop terrorism, but a lot to suggest it wouldn't.
There, I've backed it up. Again.
Oh, and Trump said:
Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.
I will have to take your word that this is what he said. I have little context naturally but I suspect that it is not something I need to defend or comment on right? He can think what he likes about whatever, I may or may not agree with any of these positions and they may or may not have anything to do with the statement of his I DO agree with. (I will not agree with everything he says because he said it, right?)
Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.
Most of this is word salad but the part I bolded seems to be identifying radical Muslim extremists IF that helps you at all. Not sure if it does?
Advocating to temporarily stop the immigration of an entire group of people defined by their religion because of a vanishingly small minority supposedly belonging to that group might be terrorists is bigoted, like it or not. There is no proof that the ban would help stop terrorism, but a lot to suggest it wouldn't.
When was it ever suggested that it will stop terrorism. I do not think I EVER made that claim? Are you trying AGAIN to introduce a bait and switch here?
How about we try these two questions:
"Would improving the vetting system so that radical Muslim extremists that we know have been concealed in Muslim refugee and broader Muslim immigrant groups by ISIS and other radical Islamic groups, help reduce the opportunities for such infiltration and reduce the numbers getting in and through?"
(The answer is Yes)
"Would placing a freeze on Muslim immigrants whilst these systems are being upgraded (and acknowledging that the reason for the system upgrade is explicitly BECAUSE the inability to effectively tell moderate from radical Muslim) be a better idea than not placing a freeze and working with an ineffective system in the meantime whilst knowing that the vetting process is subpar?
(The answer is Yes)
Now you can say this targets all Muslims (again) and it doesn't. If you are a moderate Muslim immigrant and you wish to immigrate, are you able to immigrate? Yes. If you are a moderate Muslim immigrant and you wish to immigrate to America specifically and no other country then yes you will have to wait until the system is fixed. After the freeze is lifted, you will be able to go in knowing that the chances of the the radical Islamic extremists (who are no doubt the type of people you would want left behind), be be vetted more critically and have less chance to join you on making America your new home.
There does not seem ANY bigotry there. IF you are saying "B...b...but when you are fixing the vetting system that can't tell moderate Muslim from radical Muslim extremist, you are preventing the moderate Muslim from immigrating" Yes, I know and THAT is PRECISELY WHY it is something that must be fixed and need to be frozen whilst it is being fixed.
But perhaps you need to come at it another way.
Assume that all I have said is correct:
- Big problem.
- Vetting system needs overhaul.
- Letting in Muslim immigrants without being able to check whether they are radical or not.
- ISIS has confirmed they are infiltrating Muslim communities with their members and have been doing this a good while.
- FBI isoverworked with 900 active cases of US based radicalised Islamic extremism.
- They are dropping the ball on the ones they are looking up now with devastating effects.
- America does not want any more problems with radicalised Muslim extremists.
THEN assuming this is all correct, how would you reduce the amount of radicalised Muslim extremists coming into America WHILST the system is being upgraded to differentiate moderate from radical to moderate Muslim BESIDES A) Placing a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration to US UNTIL this is fixed (Something I see as a good temporary fix and quite a rational approach) OR B) Do nothing and hope that in the time you are fixing this problem, that no radical Muslim extremist will come through and cause problems that they would not otherwise have done if (A) had been enacted.
If you have a C I am all ears.
So with bigotry being "an intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself", who am I intolerant to? It is not Muslims, so who is it to? Back yourself remember? YOU made the claim and you have yet to back this. Even as you say yo do.
-
C Not do it because it is a pointless exercise in populism and hugely bigoted. It could actually make things worse.
In other words, you're wrong.
-
And I'm done with this now, as this discussion is as pointless as what you support in it. Good luck against the windmills.
-
I'm in favour of windmills. :tard:
They bring me energy and awesome views.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4430414564_5a69d1d6af_m.jpg)
-
C Not do it because it is a pointless exercise in populism and hugely bigoted. It could actually make things worse.
In other words, you're wrong.
Well C would indicate a want to give a different and better solution to the issue and defend your charge of bigotry, which you have failed to do. I have been pretty open that I see an issue and that I see his doing something to counter this as a positive. It is not perfect, and I understand this. It has impracticalities BUT it IS better than doing nothing. If Nothing is what YOU have to counter, then admit to this. You have nothing, you are just overly emotional irrational and want to throw buzzwords around.
Again, IF you use the charge of being bigot (and bigotry IS ""an intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself"") then who am I intolerant of. IF It IS radical Muslim extremists, then I raise my hand. If someone else then show me who and why? Making the claim is easy. Backing it is something else entirely. Back yourself Odeon.
I can you being pretty interested in others backing their arguments and positions on Intensitysquared. You as someone who saw real benefit in the "one rule" of IntensitySquared. I am happy to show him again and again demand that others back themselves. Its interesting to see you do not apply this standard to yourself.
Easy to call me a bigot when I present an opinion you do not like (or perhaps understand). Its the easiest thing in the world. But when all you have to counter is things I have not said, positions I have not taken and doubling down on unsubstantiated claims, that sure as shit is not "backing yourself". You are stupid if you believe that IS what backing yourself is. Its certainly not the standard you have asked others for.