INTENSITY²
Arena for the Competitive => Main Event Callouts => Topic started by: Al Swearegen on June 15, 2016, 08:15:35 AM
-
No, it's not since Al is certainly clever enough to know that what he says is loaded. I'd say that his behaviour later, when starting a thread about alternative meanings, says more than I ever could. Plus, of course, Butterflies' reaction both then and now.
But here is the thing: "ganging up" was never my phrase, it was just a phrase that I reacted against, just as Butterflies did, because it is a loaded phrase and there is no way in hell Al doesn't get that.
If anything, it's a case of semantics mattering, which is what I have been saying all along, so using his phrasing against me in this particular instance makes no sense to me.
If Al does understand this, then it's disappointing. If he doesn't, then possibly even more.
Evidently and by your own measure Al is a moron because he did not at any time (as I have repeated over and over) attach ANY (got that Odeon) negative connotation, nor was he using the the term "ganging up" in any loaded way or meaning.
So now either I am lying or I am not, which Odeon? Choose one.
That is as simple as this gets.
The thread was genuine. It was me genuinely mocking you, but also genuinely seeing how off track I was. It appears that I wasn't. BUT let's test the theory, here were some suggestion of better alternatives, you tell me what I "SHOULD HAVE" used:
"mobbing"
"dog piling"
"Lending support"
"Constructive Criticism"
"Forming a Posse"
Now you may have a problem with any of these suggestions too. But they may well have been used by the members offering them. Mind you THOSE members never pulled me up on MY phrase. So I want you to tell me which of these phrases YOU do not find appropriate or loaded?
Then tell me what phrase GIVEN the context I SHOULD have used?
Its fine to throw it out there and say I meant x in a y way. But YOU need to back yourself. If I deny it am I lying? Yes or no? If I ought not have used that phrase then what phrase would have been suitable in the way that I meant it, and in describing what I was describing? As you have not told me I sought other opinions, were THEIR opinions equally wrong or right?
IF they are wrong too or if you find it difficult in finding an appropriate phrase then are YOU perhaps wrong? If you come up with a better phrase, is it JUST your opinion and does that make your a moral arbiter?
Recently in Australia, we had an idiot in some position of power they don't deserve pushing idiotic narratives.
Here is one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jTt3Vb4FTI
There has been A LOT of pushback. Why? Because to most people "Hey guys" is NOT a loaded phrase. But to some it is. Some people saying "Hey guys" mean it to say "hey everyone" BUT there is a thought that some may mean it to be purely an allocation of masculine gender identity or whatever this idiot is pronouncing. So the speaker has to re-think THEIR position? NO!
If you are with me so far, you will probably agree that it matters in which way the person meant it and that there was more than one way they could have. You would likely agree, it may mean a person upset by the usage can complain or express confusion as to how they actually meant it, BUT THAT does not change the usage or intent.
They have found the use of "Hey girls" for women is almost equally rejected. Most people are not sensitive to it and most do not see it as problematic.
If I take this a step further, if I say "Hey gang" what am I implying about the make up of the people I am talking about? Not a lot?
When I said "ganging up" I meant it entirely in the sense that they were both collectively and together disagreeing/arguing/critiquing/criticising DFG. THAT is it. Together and at the same time.
There was NO moral judgement. There was nothing nasty. There as no implication of bullying - not on here.
So again I have asked a lot of very reasonable questions (many of which you seem to have sought to evade) and in context of all I have said, I would not mind some answers.
How many people are needed in order for a gang to be a gang? Out of interest.
(http://www.gerweck.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/one-man-gang.jpg)
"One Man Gang"
A gang of one? A gang of two? A gang of three? I'd probably say three or more.
This narrative of "You bought it up Al" is bullshit, so let's not go there.
I bought up what? I SAID she and Zegh were "ganging up". But I never made an issue of it, nor did I presume it as negative or partial. YOU made an issue of it and YOU bought it up. It became an issue because you made it an issue. Something you wanted me to explain and back and defend. It was ridiculous in exactly the same way that someone saying "Hey guys" would not have "bought up" anything NOR would they have anything to need to defend.
Now if they were nice people they could say "I am sorry you felt I meant guys to be a gendered term but I actually meant it to be gender neutral and not in the negative way you thought I may have meant it"
I similarly if I was nice could have gone "I am sorry, Odeon, that you felt I meant something bullying and nasty but I actually meant it to be collectively joining in together to critique/criticise/argue/dispute/whatever another member (as often happens on Intensitysquared without much alarm) and not in the negative way you thought I may have meant it"
I could have but I did not. Partially because you stating as a fact what I thought or "must have known" was not only incorrect but fucking stupid. If you suspected or had ANY issue, you could have asked me instead of tell me what I thought. You didn't. So I sure as hell do not feel bound to defend that.
-
Its interesting (in a kind of morbid way) watching you evolve your argument. You know your efforts to state that I was:
"dishonest" (in the very beginning)
then quickly not dishonest but rather "intellectually dishonest"
then "intellectually lazy"
then not intellectually dishonest but rather that I had a "blindspot"
then back to intellectual dishonesty
then reaffirming with Jack that you meant intellectual dishonesty as a form of intellectual laziness only
now you are back to dishonesty.
Now IF hypothetically, someone was to accuse someone of lying BUT from their own behaviour lie about what their actual position was for 3 months, what would that make THEM?
If you said "Liar", I would say that seemed logical. But if that person lying also was committing the same flaw as what they were accusing the other person of doing, there is a word for that too - "Hypocrite". The act of casting their own faults on another is called "projection".
Hypothetically speaking this would be something any reasonable decent human would seek to avoid doing.
Tomorrow night I am going to research through the posts to see if you have done this.
-
Tomorrow night I am going to research through the posts to see if you have done this.
Or you could return to your normal life again :zoinks:
-
Its interesting (in a kind of morbid way) watching you evolve your argument. You know your efforts to state that I was:
"dishonest" (in the very beginning)
then quickly not dishonest but rather "intellectually dishonest"
then "intellectually lazy"
then not intellectually dishonest but rather that I had a "blindspot"
then back to intellectual dishonesty
then reaffirming with Jack that you meant intellectual dishonesty as a form of intellectual laziness only
now you are back to dishonesty.
Now IF hypothetically, someone was to accuse someone of lying BUT from their own behaviour lie about what their actual position was for 3 months, what would that make THEM?
If you said "Liar", I would say that seemed logical. But if that person lying also was committing the same flaw as what they were accusing the other person of doing, there is a word for that too - "Hypocrite". The act of casting their own faults on another is called "projection".
Hypothetically speaking this would be something any reasonable decent human would seek to avoid doing.
Tomorrow night I am going to research through the posts to see if you have done this.
"dishonest" (in the very beginning)
Again, mate, I don't care who started this. It doesn't matter after all this time, if it ever did. The fact is that you do this because you enjoy it, you both do, and pretending it's something else (which was my impression of the post I replied to) is just dishonest.
....
The problem with that one, though, is that you supposedly don't read his posts which means that either you're dishonest about calling him out on his bs or dishonest about not reading his posts. You don't get to do both, it's either you read what he is saying and think it's bs, or you don't read it and, well, post ninja cats but cannot possibly know if it's bs or not. Assume, yes, sure, but know, certainly not. This what you mean when saying I'm calling you dishonest at best and a liar at worst?
....
You have known me a long time, too, and so you should know by now that I don't call people dishonest or liars as a general rule. I do, however, question their motives when I feel it's warranted.
then quickly not dishonest but rather "intellectually dishonest"
That about right? And remember that what we are discussing here is not the true nature of Zegh's character, even though it's what you try to make it to be, we are discussing whether or not your assumptions, your not knowing (and admitting that you don't know), are an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
But I felt I needed to point out that no, I don't think you are a dishonest person, it is not your MO, I think you displayed intellectual dishonesty in this particular case, and that's why I reacted.
Don't you think this is intellectually dishonest?
then "intellectually lazy"
then not intellectually dishonest but rather that I had a "blindspot"
... Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.
then back to intellectual dishonesty
then reaffirming with Jack that you meant intellectual dishonesty as a form of intellectual laziness only
This is also from the link: 'Intellectual dishonesty is quite worthy of distinction from simple dishonesty. Of course, the term only makes sense in the context of an intellectual pursuit.'
So, if the two of you can cherry pick what you like best from that link, then I cherry pick that one, because the word intellectual is in there for a reason and it doesn't mean anything and everything cognitive.
A fair point. OTOH, one might argue that while the reason why all this happened in the first place should probably not be labelled as an "intellectual pursuit", it is entirely possible to discuss the mechanics of that reason using those terms.
But one might also argue that a) intellectual dishonesty is frequently a fancy and loaded term for intellectual laziness, b) most of us are guilty of it at one time or another to varying degrees, and c) this reply itself is an exercise best read with tongue firmly in cheek.
Then again, it's also possible to argue that very little on this board could ever be labelled as "an intellectual pursuit". :P
Every time a new term comes up in this topic, I try to understand how it applies. Sir Les has brought a new term to the front: Expectations. For some time read Odeon as say Sir Les was deceptive in some way by means of multiple terms of pretending, pretence, and dishonesty both intellectual and not, then later read Odeon was calling him intellectually lazy and I attributed that to him simply being personally annoyed, regardless if the term fits or not. The when Odeon finally made his point about Sir Les having it both ways by presenting a challenge while ignoring the response, just assumed Odeon saw it as out of character since that's not Sir Les' usual style.
now you are back to dishonesty.
::sigh::
Who cares? Well, for one, Butterflies did. She reacted the same way I did. She had the same interpretation of the term as I did. Words matter, Al, and there is no way you are not aware of the implications of "ganging up".
Why is it that if you use a term "in passing", we're supposed to ignore it since you claim you didn't "say it in a negative way" but you generate page upon page of callout posts if somebody else does it?
You might as well kill that newest callout of yours, btw. I am not going to respond to it, and nor am I interested in continuing this one.
Nothing like a little bit of consistency, huh?
Now IF hypothetically, someone was to accuse someone of lying BUT from their own behaviour lie about what their actual position was for 3 months, what would that make THEM?
If you said "Liar", I would say that seemed logical. But if that person lying also was committing the same flaw as what they were accusing the other person of doing, there is a word for that too - "Hypocrite". The act of casting their own faults on another is called "projection".
Hypothetically speaking this would be something any reasonable decent human would seek to avoid doing.
I'd normally ask someone to back themselves but in your case I won't for what ought to be obvious reasons.
-
Now the lies have started. Not that he will be able to back them either. From there, what? More lies and bigger lies. Sign of a poor argument and poor intellectual honesty
-
Still in a pissy mood, then?
-
Not yet.
I did not think you were responding to this call out? I will be charitable and call it a change of heart.
But seriously, you made a couple of lies, do you believe lying is key to good arguments or in debating alternate positions? Did you feel your position needing padding out with a lie or two? Do you think that imbues it with with strength and force given its obvious lack of substance?
-
Seriously, how many callouts are you planning on? Don't you think you have enough of them yet?
Yes, I think you are in a pissy mood. If you hadn't fared so badly in the first one you wouldn't have been so keen on the second (not counting threads, mind, just subject matters). What happened, of course, is that you fared badly in both, which obviously doesn't help your mood.
-
Seriously, how many callouts are you planning on? Don't you think you have enough of them yet?
Yes, I think you are in a pissy mood. If you hadn't fared so badly in the first one you wouldn't have been so keen on the second (not counting threads, mind, just subject matters). What happened, of course, is that you fared badly in both, which obviously doesn't help your mood.
That's a great line of bullshit you got there Odeon.
How many callouts? I don't know, is there a limit? No? Then perhaps as many as I care to make?
I fared badly? I don't know if you believe this but the fact that you are reduced to lying certainly does not say much about how poor I am faring, but rather how badly you are.
I don't mind if you say I am in a pissy mood. I don't even care if you believe that. I just don't feel obliged to feed your ego by humouring the notion
Just so we are all on the level, the reason for me starting the last callout is because you said the you would refuse to answer one. I started another and you responded to it. Now you respond to both. It was also the reason for the title of the new callout. But then you knew that because I already explained it to you, right?
-
Well,, we got the answer for the abundance of callouts.
Just so we are all on the level, the reason for me starting the last callout is because you said the you would refuse to answer one. I started another and you responded to it. Now you respond to both. It was also the reason for the title of the new callout. But then you knew that because I already explained it to you, right?
Kind of Zegh in reverse. Zegh's tactics were to trigger Al whenever he could, in the hope Al made call-outs and then not to respond to them.
Odeon said he was not answering call-outs any more, so Al makes more to see if he can get reasons to call Odeon a liar. Seems to be the only acknowledged reason now.
Call-outs are serious business.
"Liar liar, pants on fire" something like that.
Hyke,
Out of interest, how did you manage to misinterpret this so very badly?
That explanation was me explaining why I made another callout. Was it "to call Odeon a liar if he responded"? No. No mention of that. I did not say he was a liar for doing so and nor have I inferred that he was a liar for doing so. What I DID say in that quoted piece is that I made another callout because he said he was not going to respond to one of them. My expectation therefore was that if I wanted a response, it was not going to be in the callout he said he was not going to respond to. Hence me starting a new one to get a response. All of what I said.
It had precisely NOTHING to do with me wanting to get reasons to call Odeon a liar. Did it?
It was to get a response that he wasn't going to give in the other callout. In fact him replying in a new callout would not make him a liar for not responding in the old callout that he had committed not to respond in.
So no idea where you got this conclusion. It did not even "seem" this way at all.
As for Odeon lying, YES he DID lie. Twice. Not in relation to responding or not responding to callouts. I even placed in my signature the specific posts where I show he had lied.
Lie #1
You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders:
Going to call you a liar outright and ask that you neither back track and:
No qualifying here
To show your inability to back this I will say I never said this and you can not show this. Now show me where I said anything about Muslim tourists visiting US on a visa and Muslim Americans coming back home from vacations.
Do not water down
You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders:
No backtracking and no qualifying. Why did you lie. Are you so unable to back yourself? Is your position so very weak that you have to lie? I am curious.
Lie#2
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......A hint, though: a hypothetical comparing Muslims to Ebola, subtle as it may be, is not the way to go.
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.
Yet you missed this two and invented a reason for me accusing Odeon of lying?
It may well be a joke I fail to get.......I hope.
-
I didn't produce that awful Ebola hypothetical, you did. I can't help you if you don't see the problem but I'm fairly most people here do.
As for that other bit, how many times do I have to quote you? The first one was about you saying how rational you think Donald was re stopping the Muslims at the border, even though there could be some practicalities to solve. If you think it's me lying since you didn't say "I agree with Donald, ban them all" outright, you'd probably better reconsider because that's rather like saying that Hitler bloke had some great, rational ideas about cleansing his country but then denying any kind of bigotry.
I'm pretty sure that other one, where you wanted a "temporary freeze" until the FBI get their act together, included not just the Muslims but anyone coming from Muslim-dominated countries. Think I'm lying there too? I'm still interested in your proof, btw, but I guess I shouldn't be holding my breath.
Sorry but you suck at this.
-
I didn't produce that awful Ebola hypothetical, you did. I can't help you if you don't see the problem but I'm fairly most people here do.
As for that other bit, how many times do I have to quote you? The first one was about you saying how rational you think Donald was re stopping the Muslims at the border, even though there could be some practicalities to solve. If you think it's me lying since you didn't say "I agree with Donald, ban them all" outright, you'd probably better reconsider because that's rather like saying that Hitler bloke had some great, rational ideas about cleansing his country but then denying any kind of bigotry.
I'm pretty sure that other one, where you wanted a "temporary freeze" until the FBI get their act together, included not just the Muslims but anyone coming from Muslim-dominated countries. Think I'm lying there too? I'm still interested in your proof, btw, but I guess I shouldn't be holding my breath.
Sorry but you suck at this.
You really suck at this. If you are running to Hitler in trying to make a point about me being bigoted you are well into Goodwin's Law territory.
So I compared Ebola to something? To what. I DID talk of a disease like Ebola on Steroids. (ie a nasty deadly pervasive, deadly, threatening and infectious disease worse than Ebola). So I ACTUALLY (and honestly) compared Ebola to a hypothetical disease. That is all. Did I make ANY comparison of Ebola to Muslims? Any? No? Okay you lied.
Next we will see what I compared what to in the analogy. I compared good decent and moderate Muslims to healthy people (ie not infected with a horrible unnamed disease). Did I compare THESE Muslims to Ebola? No. So you lied. I compared radicalised Muslim Extremists to unhealthy people (ie infected with a horrible unnamed disease). Did I compare THESE Muslims to Ebola? No. So you lied.
So what did I compare Ebola to? A hypothetical nasty disease. What did I compare the nasty unnamed disease to? Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.
So as I said, nothing wrong with the hypothetical. At all. Plenty wrong with you lying about what I said. But that is on you. I am absolutely sure that IF I DID say "All Muslims are as bad as Ebola" or even implied this most people on this site would not be impressed and IF I said this you would not have to lie now, right? I did not say this, nor infer it, nor in any way imply it and I spelled it out to you when you told me you were confused and so it is NOT that you don't get it or that you misinterpreted. No you are emotional and want to make an emotional argument devoid of truth to pad your weak claim. So you lie.
But then that was not the only place you are lying is it? Stop all Muslim from coming in at the border? Lie. Just outright lie. You know it is a lie. You say "But you said" and in knowing what I said you make no point for yourself. Regardless of whether Donald Trump was able to make his idea into a policy and enforce it, neither "preventing Muslim Immigrants" which is his main option or "preventing Muslims from coming from Muslim dominated countries" which was another option of his.
That is not ALL Muslims. In the first instance No Muslim Nationals are affected nor any Muslim tourists AND if you are sneaky enough as a moderate or radicalised Muslim you simply denounce your religious affiliation at check out and in you come (presumably). In the second instance you make sure that you come in via Europe instead of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran or other such countries. (All of these things are not exactly a plus for the idea, but good ideas sometimes have practical limitations).
So would either stop all Muslims? Was you saying that this is what I was saying, truth or lie? It can't be both. When you said I was "targeting ALL Muslims", were you telling the truth or lying?
Assuming you were lying, I suspect that the reason is that you have a greater amount of emotional investment than what you ought to have. If you go to is bigotry when you here any viewpoint that you do not agree with that involves Muslims, that is completely on you, not the person you wish to smear.
At the end of the day my emotional investment is not there. If Bernie comes up with a different solution that addresses what I see as obvious problems then I would support that. I do not care if the measures are harsh. In Australia we have signed up to the same treaty as US and we have detention centres for when boat people come sailing in. We isolate them for protracted periods of time until we make sure they are not infectious with third world diseases to infect the population, and to work out who they are and whether to deport them or introduce them into Australia. This idea of Donald Trump's is no better or worse in my opinion.
It is not bigoted to protect your citizens from harm or your borders from undesirables. Australians know it and Donald Trump seems to. As to whether the people on I2 agree or not, I think you may be surprised. Of course you may wish to misrepresent what I say or lie in order to try to bolster your position that doing nothing more than what is being done to maintain the US borders and vet immigrants is best, and that the Americans with 9/11 in their national consciousness and Orlando bodies barely in the ground, that they ought to fear furniture with the same or greater value to what they can radicalised Muslim extremists in America. Try it on and see how well the Americans on here swallow that kind of crap.
It is a good thing that they are not reading this and that you do not ask the question.
-
I didn't lie. You simply have trouble formulating your arguments and so you slip.
This is where you approve of what Trump has suggested:
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. .
Now, you got it slightly wrong, because he doesn't simply want to ban Muslim immigrants, he wants to ban every Muslim from entering the US. Read about it here (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/). This is what you actually approve of, only you're like a lot of people and got your facts wrong. A bit embarrassing but par for the course.
And this is where you do that awkward Ebola on steroids comparison.
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.
So subtle. What you are saying is that they all look the same and so they should all be stopped until we learn how to tell them apart.
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.
Again, subtle. It's enough that they are Muslims, maybe they don't even know how radical they've become. Let's just stop them all until we learn how to do this.
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.)
Your point has been made, yes. Stop them all because you are afraid and don't know how to tell them apart. No matter that the probabilities are low, lower than a lot of other things, say, shootings by nationals, and no matter that there is an easy solution to bring down those numbers, one that is supported by a majority of people.
You are effectively comparing Muslims to Ebola but trying to explain it away. Donald would be so proud if he knew.
What's sort of interesting is that if you actually missed that Donald wants to stop every Muslim, not just the immigrants, you are supporting a half measure and not the full Donald. Or is it that you think the terrorists only immigrate rather than travel to their targets on tourist visas?
Anyway, I am now done with this argument. It's not going anywhere and pretty much any thread here is more fun.
-
I didn't lie. You simply have trouble formulating your arguments and so you slip.
Yes you lied. You are trying to justify your lie. That "surprisingly" is not on me
This is where you approve of what Trump has suggested:
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. .
Now, you got it slightly wrong, because he doesn't simply want to ban Muslim immigrants, he wants to ban every Muslim from entering the US. Read about it here (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/). This is what you actually approve of, only you're like a lot of people and got your facts wrong. A bit embarrassing but par for the course.
No. I had it right. This is what he had said in interviews. What I mentioned above is what I agreed in principle with. I did not get my facts wrong I agreed with what he said. Two very different things. What may or may not be embarrassing is, after me saying that I actually WANT to see him flesh this out and expand on it, to treat it as me getting it wrong once he does exactly that. I mean I would be a bit embarrassed but after you are shameless in your lying, I guess the downside is not that steep.
And this is where you do that awkward Ebola on steroids comparison.
It was not awkward and saying so does not make it so.
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.
So subtle. What you are saying is that they all look the same and so they should all be stopped until we learn how to tell them apart.
Take off your tinfoil, Odeon. An analogy is an analogy. It is not saying Muslims are some kind of plague. Who all look the same? People suffering with disease? The same in which way? In fact this is key to the analogy.
National safety at risk because there are a heap of people clamouring to get in and some of them are infectious and some are not. How do you tell who is infectious. Do they "look" sick? If so take out all those who appear sick and let in the reflect. Congrats some of those you did not let in were just a bit run down or had a cold and many you let in are sick. You have just spread a deadly disease to the United States.
Maybe when you said look the same you were not trying to implied that they "present the same" (ie sick people and well people may look similar or Moderate Muslims and radical extremist Muslim may present the same passports and answer the same questions in the same way not yielding their real views and with the same lack of records to back their claims) you were saying that they all are from the same ethnicity or race or whatever. I don't know but if you are trying the latter approach, don't bother.
As for me choosing Iran, why not? I wanted a smallish country surrounded by other countries. Let's be completely honest if I had of said any other country you would have had an issue with that country too. I would be a bigot if I said an African country or a South American country and no doubt if i had of said European country you would have found some way I was "subtle" there. No I was not subtle, it wasn't an issue, as much as you try to make it one.
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.
Again, subtle. It's enough that they are Muslims, maybe they don't even know how radical they've become. Let's just stop them all until we learn how to do this.
No its not subtle. Radicalised Muslims DO know they are radical and they know their views, what an idiotic inference to make. No, I did not make it, you did.
This is stating in the analogy that the reasoning behind the leaving and the urgency and the crisis is honest. Infected people fleeing a plague is as crisis riddled as populations fleeing a war. The want to migrate is not suspect. You will know that most of the people fronting up have VERY genuine reasons to wanting to make somewhere else their home. Which one of these people IS a threat and how do you tell. THAT is the point.
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.)
Your point has been made, yes. Stop them all because you are afraid and don't know how to tell them apart. No matter that the probabilities are low, lower than a lot of other things, say, shootings by nationals, and no matter that there is an easy solution to bring down those numbers, one that is supported by a majority of people.
Gun laws will not reduce that. You are simply a fool if you believe that. Are you a fool? No. Then what was the ACTUAL "easy solution".
Mateen as an example hated gays. He wanted to kill those gays in that nightclub. He chose his target. Radicalised Islamic hatred. Now take away legal access to that gun. What happens in this equation? Fire? Chemical attack? Or maybe another Boston bombing style event? Yes your "easy solution" would not have done shit, would it?
Out of interest what would the easy solution have done to the Boston Bombers? Nothing? Great conversation, great plan.
You are effectively comparing Muslims to Ebola but trying to explain it away. Donald would be so proud if he knew.
Where is the comparison? Again you repeating a lie is not masking it truth.
There is NO Ebola. In the analogy I did not even say there was Ebola (in which to compare to Muslims). I did say the disease was like Ebola on steroids. Which way was it like Ebola? In which ways was it different? what was it called? Where did it originate from? Was it a strain of Ebola?
No all you know is that it was NOT Ebola but was even worse.
Next part (not that you will get this because you are "playing dumb" - at least that is what I thought originally and now I am not so sure you are "playing")
The disease in this instance is analogous to "Radicalised Islamic extremism" (disease - ideology), What is also analogous Healthy people to Decent Moderate Muslims and Infected people - Radicalised Muslims.
So either you are too stupid to get this rather blatant and obvious distinction or you are pretending to not get it. Either way nothing to do with me.
What's sort of interesting is that if you actually missed that Donald wants to stop every Muslim, not just the immigrants, you are supporting a half measure and not the full Donald. Or is it that you think the terrorists only immigrate rather than travel to their targets on tourist visas?
There is very little interesting in that. It is two positions and I am happy holding two different opinions on two different positions. I am happy to consider the basis for the next version of things that he brings to the table too. I will judge everything as his opinion evolves and he starts exploring and examining his idea.
Why would I imagine that terrorists only immigrate? Is that an actual question? Do you imagine that asking this might better make a point or pad your position? I already made these points but here is a much better point. If he is stopping all Muslims, what is stopping a Muslim guy coming in and saying he is a Christian or an Atheist or a Hindu?
By the way word is that though Donald Trump's position is all Muslims, it looks like it will be softening as he fleshes things out. I don't begrudge him that. Hard approach and then make a few concessions than a soft position and try to pad it up.
I think a concept needs to evolve. Interested in what he will come up with in the end. It will be different to what he said first (that I agreed with in principle) nor that he has now. It will be something a little less hard and fast.
Anyway, I am now done with this argument. It's not going anywhere and pretty much any thread here is more fun.
Well when you lie about me, you will generally get called out. Probably best not lying in the first place if you do not want the result of your lying. Its not getting anywhere because you are doubling down on dump and trying to justify lies. There is no justification and doubling down on stupid is really silly
-
Well at least you are not lying any more.
-
Maybe not lying any more but THIS is a new kind of weird
I love it how you still haven't addressed Trump's campaign book ideas.
Oh well.
This was kind of weird. You have to wonder why? Why would he imagine that there is the assumption of a needed defence.
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?
Far from amusing, it is that kind of cringeworthy where you do not know whether to be frustrated and annoyed at the cognitive dissonance or do you laugh at it or even perhaps be embarrassed over it
But it is not even JUST here. Same deal with Benji. Odeon tries telling Benji that Boris Johnson is his hero because Johnson voted to leave (as did 52% of all the voters). So because Benji voted to leave, Benji HAS to agree with Johnson and like Johnson and defend Johnson and agree with him on all things....FUCKING WEIRD!
You voted for Brexit, surely you'd know about this?
Do you not read what I write? I said I do not give a shit about Boris and Co, I was into this way before the whole 'Brexit' thing. I have already told you why I voted out. Boris is a cunt, Gove is a cunt. I was astonished that we voted to 'leave' with those 2 parasites at the helm.
So you admit that you never bothered to find out the facts? Fucking hell. You deserve what you get. Like it or not, Boris, Gove et al are the kind of people you effectively voted for.
That seems a little dishonest, Odeon. Benji and ANY Brexiter can dislike ANY person who agrees with them on the subject of Brexit. Their agreeing with the principle of UK exiting the UK DOES NOT mean that they MUST agree with and like Johnson and it is the height of idiocy to imply that. (adding case you missed it the first time around, neither does he need to explain other positions Boris may have, defend his personality or outline every strategy the government may possibly make around the future non-EU UK)
If for example someone wants UK out of the EU because they consider the EU a bit of a totalitarian regime in which they feel UK does not get a good representation, that is light years away from someone who is wanting to exit EU because they are racist and believe it will stop the Middle Eastern immigrants. The two are not comparable and it is dishonest and stupid to say if you believe one you believe both and you must agree with each other of all issues.
I see you do this in my callout too and it is ridiculous. IF Benji is a fool as you keep telling us then acting like a fool does not seem to make that case at all.
Really weird and he seems oblivious to understanding what he is doing. It is not the Odeon of a year ago even. This Odeon has no critical reasoning and will go as far to lying when he is emotional
-
And the hits just keep coming
No I didn't.
Now back to what I said. It is your go-to insult isn't it? You called me crazy, Pea mentally ill and FourAceDeal mentally ill. It is your default insult.
It seems quite blatantly obvious that when you disagree with someone's opinion, you call them mentally ill. I do get the rationale behind it too.
In the same way you described all the Brexiters as being racists (yes the whole 17 million or whatever), it is a great way or instantly and uncritically delegitimising any point that someone else may have that differs from yours.
Its far more likely that there is racists and not in the majority of either Brexiters and Bremains, but in both ranks. It is also far more likely that mental illness is NOT the reason that people have differing opinions but because your opinions are not the bastion of intellect and reason, but simply run of the mill opinions. Much like most people.
Feel free to keep calling everyone that disagrees with you mentally ill, it is obviously something you are accustomed to doing. By all means call half a population racist if it makes you feel better. I was simply pointing out something I noticed. I do not much care that you do so, just pointing out a pattern.
I called FourAceDeal crazy? I honestly don't remember. Could you show me where, please?
I suggested Pea might be mentally ill, and with good reason. Again, nothing to do with disagreeing with me, and everything to do with the content of his magnificently misjudged video.
I think you"re crazy. Not for disagreeing with me, but because of your behaviour in general. The way you constantly start long term feuds over extremely minor issues, and then refuse to let things drop. They tend to last 3 months :laugh: It's possible that you're not crazy, and are just suffering from a major personality disorder. However, I consider mental illness to be a more charitable explanation than personality disorder.
I have never called all Brexiteers racist.
So Les. Quite a few accusation, but there not very true. Are they :laugh:
:laugh: Aren't they? :laugh:
Is he mentally ill?
Is it possible that Pea is FourAceDeal? Sorry to FAD if that''s not the case.
Fucking awful :thumbdn:
Genuinely feel devastated :'(
Stayed up all night watching the results come through with a growing sense of horror.
Got about an hours sleep, and now I just want to cry >:(
:hug:
Could you vote from where you are?
I put off registering until the last minute, and when I finally got around to register, I couldn't. Turned out that because I hadn't been registered to vote in N.Ireland, I couldn't easily register to vote from here >:( It was way too late to do anything about it. Doesn't matter now though (emo) Leave won by quite a decent margin.
All my friends living here voted though. Obviously they voted remain. Would have been pretty dumb of them to have voted leave :laugh: Also, I think I'd have fallen out with any who voted leave :viking:
One of my friends and his fiance are talking about maybe moving back home because of the vote. They have a young daughter too. I get to play at being an auntie, and they're an awesome family. I'd be completely sick if they left :bigcry:
Hopefully they're just overreacting, and they won't have to leave.
I'm just in the foulest of moods at the moment :angrydance: I still can't quite believe the country voted to do this. Feel such utter contempt for England and Wales right now >:( Can't help feeling this was a vote for racism, intolerance, and isolationism :hitler: Really hope I'm wrong though :(
Back to you
Here's the full quote. Not the edited one you posted :facepalm2:
This video seems to be all about me :dunno: He's even calling me by my real name on a Youtube video :-\
It's sweet that he's "not criticized me for being lesbian," and "not really criticized me for being Scottish" :laugh:
Is he mentally ill?
Is it possible that Pea is FourAceDeal? Sorry to FAD if that''s not the case.
Clearly, this was a post about Pea.
I never came close to accusing FAD of being mentally ill. I had no reason to do so.
So, it seems that you lied when you accused me of saying FAD is mentally ill :thumbdn:
Even by your standards Les, that is pitiful. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty :thumbdn:
Can't help feeling this was a vote for racism, intolerance, and isolationism :hitler: Really hope I'm wrong though :(
I fully stand by that comment, and believe it to be true now, just as much as I did when I posted it.
However, that's very different to saying I "described all the Brexiters as being racists (yes the whole 17 million or whatever.")
At no point have I described all 17 million brexiteers as racists. Clearly not every brexiteer is a racist.
So Les, it looks like at best, you were completely wrong, and are desperately trying to quote posts that vaguely back your false claims :thumbdn:
At worst, you were just downright lying :thumbdn:
It's hard to believe that you are genuinely stupid enough to really believe that my posts accused FAD of being mentally ill, or that I accused every brexiteer of being a racist. If I am unable to believe that your mistakes are down to stupidity, then I am left with no option but to conclude that they are down to dishonesty.
Not cool Les. Not cool at all :thumbdn:
Hmm....I call bulletin.
Yes you asked whether Pea was mental ill and directly after whether FAD was Pea.
If Pea is mentally ill and FAD is Pea...
Yep it's you default. Both guy thought different to you so therefore both are alike and mentally ill.
No huge leaps, it's in your own words
You think racism, isolationism and intolerance is why Brexiters voted to leave....but your opinion is NOT that Brexiters are racist?
Now who is intellectually dishonest?
Out of interest how many Brexiters were there?
She proved you wrong. Admit it.
Yes not Odeon of a Year ago.
First point: C believes that A is mad. C Believes that B is A. Therefore does C believe B is mad?
Take your time :laugh:
Second point:"Can't help feeling this was a vote for racism, intolerance, and isolationism :hitler:"
This may mean different things to different people and for different reasons. To me it seems to indicate rather strongly that
"Can't help feeling" Indicates that the member is "feeling" (perhaps against want or better judgement but feeling something irrespectively.)
"This was a vote for" Indicates to me that the member was saying that the purpose of the people voting in favour of leaving the EU (Context really should support this by any measure).
"racism, intolerance, and isolationism :hitler:" Indicates the aforementioned purpose. All of which I contend is a racist mindset. Someone who will vote based on racism, intolerance and isolationism IS being racist.
So....that all cleared up. What exactly did you imagine I got wrong Odeon?
What a complete fool. He did not realise my sarcasm. I was actually making my point being deliberately contrarian and Butterflies seemed to get it. Odeon clearly missed the subtlety entirely and thought I was conceding a point and rather than actually read what I had said and how it refuted her, wanted me to....I don't know? Apologise? Admit fault? Be crestfallen? Its cringeworthy. So very silly. Any thought to Odeon presenting a rational and logical opinion is long gone.
-
Now trying for accusing me of lying.
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.
Seriously, Al? Why lie?
If this was not bad enough. I accused him of lying (and showed it in my signature) and he did a weak version of "I know what you are but what am I?".
But then it takes an even more painful turn:
And so you've started lying and misrepresenting my posts. Well done, "mate". If you want an all-out flame war, you're off to a good start.
Its pure cringe
-
Well, stop lying and misrepresenting me, then. I'm not going to indulge you and quote your lies--you know what you did. And if you don't, then you truly are an idiot.
Mate.
-
Well, stop lying and misrepresenting me, then. I'm not going to indulge you and quote your lies--you know what you did. And if you don't, then you truly are an idiot.
Mate.
More "I know what you are but what am I?" Odeon has nothing.
-
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.
Hell, I think I have evidence of this in this thread.
I've already explained why your opinions amount to bigotry.
No, he said he disagreed with a point I never made, never agreed with nor defended and called me a bigot. Big difference. As I say, lying and/or stupid.
-
I see. You are the only one allowed to accuse others of lying.
You live in a narrow world.
-
I see. You are the only one allowed to accuse others of lying.
You live in a narrow world.
Not at all. You can accuse me of whatever you like but when you try this as a tactic after you see me accusing you of the same thing and unlike me do not show why you believe that (rather than just say "You know why/how/what you lied about") it looks a little bit disingenuous and simply trying to distract attention away from you. Weak, disingenuous and stupid.
-
I see. You are the only one allowed to accuse others of lying.
You live in a narrow world.
Not at all. You can accuse me of whatever you like but when you try this as a tactic after you see me accusing you of the same thing and unlike me do not show why you believe that (rather than just say "You know why/how/what you lied about") it looks a little bit disingenuous and simply trying to distract attention away from you. Weak, disingenuous and stupid.
Your attention, you mean? Nobody else gives a shit.
But the irony of it all. You accuse me of lying and then lie yourself. Your intellectual dishonesty knows no boundaries these days. Maybe you did lie about not tiptoeing around DFG, after all.
-
I see. You are the only one allowed to accuse others of lying.
You live in a narrow world.
Not at all. You can accuse me of whatever you like but when you try this as a tactic after you see me accusing you of the same thing and unlike me do not show why you believe that (rather than just say "You know why/how/what you lied about") it looks a little bit disingenuous and simply trying to distract attention away from you. Weak, disingenuous and stupid.
Your attention, you mean? Nobody else gives a shit.
But the irony of it all. You accuse me of lying and then lie yourself. Your intellectual dishonesty knows no boundaries these days. Maybe you did lie about not tiptoeing around DFG, after all.
You have yet to show me where I have lied. Make the accusation as much as you like though. I will accuse you of being a clown.
-
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?)
-
Pictures of backs:
(http://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/2014/04/17/106/n/28443503/4971d5da4360f4ec_thumb_temp_image345981221397691142.xxxlarge/i/Good-Posture-Sitting-Correctly-Back-Pain-Osteopathy.jpg)
(https://cdn.muscleandstrength.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/articles/back-2.jpg)
(http://www.tattoobite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sexy-wings-tattoos-on-back-for-girls.jpg)
-
McJ would approve. :P
-
I'm backing Hubert up.
(https://i.imgur.com/XK7VcGR.webm)
(http://i.imgur.com/fmZtTc6.jpg)
-
Pictures of backs:
(http://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/2014/04/17/106/n/28443503/4971d5da4360f4ec_thumb_temp_image345981221397691142.xxxlarge/i/Good-Posture-Sitting-Correctly-Back-Pain-Osteopathy.jpg)
(https://cdn.muscleandstrength.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/articles/back-2.jpg)
(http://www.tattoobite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sexy-wings-tattoos-on-back-for-girls.jpg)
You "back" your self far better than Odeon
-
My interpretation of Odeon's latest efforts.
In daring to mention an agreement in principle to some merits of an idea to "turn off the mains" (flow of Muslim immigrants) to "fix the leak" (radicalised Islamic Extremists that were being planted by ISIS that the current vetting system was too poor to pick up from decent moderate Muslims immigrants) before "turning the mains back on again" (continuing normal immigration levels with better systems in place), Odeon lost himself in emotional arguments.
When asked to back his assertions of me being a bigot, AGAIN, he was flat-footed. Even moreso than his intellectual dishonesty claims. He had nothing.
Instead of being honest and perhaps being brave enough to put up his hand and say "You know what, I still don't agree with you, but whilst I don't consider this idea to be practical, workable, helpful or with any merit, I was wrong to call you a bigot. He did what some people will do....Double Down.
He had no "gotcha" when I asked him to back himself. So what he is doing is a long established tactic of throwing bullshit, keep calling me a bigot, and watching my reaction for anything that he can say "Aha! See i was right you are bigoted".
This is NOT backing a claim.
*Calling me a bigot does not back the claim of me being a bigot.
*Bringing up what is on Donald Trump's webpage or his campaign book has no bearing on your claim of me being a bigot as I have not vouched an opinion on either so neither matter in context of what I have supported in principle or my reasons being that support.
*My stated beliefs of the ills to society that is bought with radical Islamic Extremists is NOT bigotry either. I have never said ALL Muslims are a threat nor have I maligned moderate Muslims once.
*Stating your belief that the problem is not as big as is claimed is subjectively moot at absolute best and at worst is buffoonery AND it makes no claim as to me a bigot.
*Making claims as to unconstitutionality for America to protect its borders from a verified danger is no claim of bigotry reasonable to imagine that America has no right to do so.
*Speaking about my Muslim friends (who I have spoken on here about before this thread) is not some point to you as to supposed bigotry on my part. That is desperate and stupid.
This in mind, Odeon, you have NO basis to call me a bigot. You did not like my agreement in Principle with an idea you did not and got emotional. You dropped rationality AGAIN and chose to attack irrationally and emotionally. Now because I have called you on it, you try the above points to wiggle your way into a position. It is simply wedge pushing. If I give any of these points validity then the next point is stronger and so on. Not letting these things slide. You will have no handhold with any of these tactics.
You are doing this whilst waiting for me to somehow say anything that could be vaguely bigoted, so that you can swoop in and say "There! See you are bigoted" and then apply the standard retroactively.
None of this is honest or genuine. Its all pretty weak, emotional and desperate. Terribly dishonest.
I see what you are doing and why, Odeon. Make a proper argument. You make the claim properly then back it properly. If you can't, then at least have the testicular fortitude to admit that you fucked up. Weak as piss, Odeon.
-
Stop acting like one and I will stop calling you one. Dead easy.
-
Stop acting like one and I will stop calling you one. Dead easy.
I haven't been. The fact that I haven't, makes this a little difficult for you. Be real though. You calling me a bigot is nothing. You were calling me liar before that. Pissy before that and intellectually dishonest before that. Nothing in any of that.
Its you deflecting, because you are unable to back what you throw around when you are emotional.
-
"Emotional"? :rofl:
You are still in a pissy mood.
-
"Emotional"? :rofl:
You are still in a pissy mood.
Yup you do get emotional. You make emotionally invested claims without any rationality and then double down on your weak arguments.
-
I like that video of Ayaan.
I like how she sees Freedom, up in debate as the weapon against extremism.
Reading an extended interview with her a while ago fits into what she says here. Her hope is for a big chunk in the Muslim world, her hope is people in the Muslim world embracing the critical thinking. Now already happening in practice, like wanting to drink, or wanting the benefits of western society, and evolving into the theoretical embracing, towards that critical thinking.
A process that happened in Christian thinking, and evolved at high speed the past few decades. She sees it coming in the Muslim world. Any support the west can give there will pay off big time.
I agree with her that the West should take pride in Freedom. That's where an answer is that will work.
-
I like that video of Ayaan.
I like how she sees Freedom, up in debate as the weapon against extremism.
Reading an extended interview with her a while ago fits into what she says here. Her hope is for a big chunk in the Muslim world, her hope is people in the Muslim world embracing the critical thinking. Now already happening in practice, like wanting to drink, or wanting the benefits of western society, and evolving into the theoretical embracing, towards that critical thinking.
A process that happened in Christian thinking, and evolved at high speed the past few decades. She sees it coming in the Muslim world. Any support the west can give there will pay off big time.
I agree with her that the West should take pride in Freedom. That's where an answer is that will work.
I think like going to someone's house. They have a lock on the door and may invite you in. If you are in need, they may allow yo to stay long term. If you decide to molest the occupants or blow up the house or murder the occupants, you are not welcome in the house.
Immigration is not a right it is a privilege. You may be rejected or you may be let in at the country's pleasure.
-
There is a big difference in immigration ideas between Australia and lots of European countries.
I would never be able to become an Australian, because I have diagnosed autism.
Right now, there is a petition going on in my country, because a family is sent back to a country considered to be safe, yet one of the kids has autism, and he'll have to join the army in said country.
Completely different mindset.
I've not signed that petition. But I am glad immigration rules in the Netherlands are not as highly selective as they are in Australia. And that has to do with where and how I am raised.
I like what they started in Germany. A television program, in the language of the refugees, explaining life in Germany. Including the importance of freedom and equality.
The New Years Eve raping and sexual harassing in Germany was not because of refugees, is what was in the news today. It was mainly done by groups of North African men, who've been around in Germany way longer already. They should have been welcomed with the same information on what to expect and respect, when living in Germany.
The problem is not letting people in. The problem is not making them part of life and thoughts and values of the country when letting them in. Segregation in the seventies was easy. Lets import people to do the menial jobs for a while, they'll go back in ten years, we don't have to invest in making them part of our country. That is where things started to go wrong. Way back in the seventies. By not taking our own values serious presenting them to our guests, and not taking the guests we invited in serious, avoiding all contact. Giving them not a part in the house, but the shed, without proper interaction to make them appreciate our values.
-
There is a big difference in immigration ideas between Australia and lots of European countries.
I would never be able to become an Australian, because I have diagnosed autism.
Right now, there is a petition going on in my country, because a family is sent back to a country considered to be safe, yet one of the kids has autism, and he'll have to join the army in said country.
Completely different mindset.
I've not signed that petition. But I am glad immigration rules in the Netherlands are not as highly selective as they are in Australia. And that has to do with where and how I am raised.
I like what they started in Germany. A television program, in the language of the refugees, explaining life in Germany. Including the importance of freedom and equality.
The New Years Eve raping and sexual harassing in Germany was not because of refugees, is what was in the news today. It was mainly done by groups of North African men, who've been around in Germany way longer already. They should have been welcomed with the same information on what to expect and respect, when living in Germany.
The problem is not letting people in. The problem is not making them part of life and thoughts and values of the country when letting them in. Segregation in the seventies was easy. Lets import people to do the menial jobs for a while, they'll go back in ten years, we don't have to invest in making them part of our country. That is where things started to go wrong. Way back in the seventies. By not taking our own values serious presenting them to our guests, and not taking the guests we invited in serious, avoiding all contact. Giving them not a part in the house, but the shed, without proper interaction to make them appreciate our values.
I disagree.
No rational and decent person would think that you would immigrate or even visit a host country and rape its women and children and that would somehow be okay and just a values thing.
-
If you read the posts I made before, starting from the post as a reaction on the link of that woman saying rape was a cultural thing, you will see that I think it should be punished. Excluding people from punishment, because of their origin is stupid. Is not taking the crime, the victim and the criminal serious.
In case you missed it, I think the woman in that link is the bigot, for singling immigrants out and not taking their crime as serious as the same crime done by non immigrants.
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.
And if people are not yet a full citizen, clearly they have to leave the country, without escaping punishment. When people have become full citizens, that is what they are, full citizens.
-
I agree entirely
-
A big part of what I believe to be Odeon's problem
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:
Seems unable to do this?
-
More of Odeon falling over himself to try and build a case after having overreacted on emotional grounds.
Having no real grounds to call anything I said bigoted, he tries fabricating my position by trying a series of switch and baits.
Fucking pathetic and sad. If he "could" have backed himself, he would have but he relied on switch and baits and outright lying.
I'm sure blaming Muslims will sway the idiots, just as blaming Jews did a couple of years ago and still does, but it wouldn't help.
I don't blame Muslims though and YOU know I don't blame Muslims. I told you already, I am not playing bait and switch with you Odeon. I blame radicalised Muslim Extremists. That is NOT Muslims.
It is people with a completely different mentality. In the same way a moderate weekly church going Christian is hardly the same as Westboro Baptists. But you know that already, right? :dunce:
Its weak to keep trying for this bait and switch isn't it , Odeon? Yup, I thought so too.
In fact, you still have to present proof for a ban to work. Any proof. Numbers, ideas, anything...? Don't be shy.
Do I have to present proof of a ban to work? I do not think I suggested a ban? I thought I simply supported in principle a temporary freeze whilst vetting procedures are improved?
What I have been saying is that banning Muslims at the US borders is stupid, bigoted and ineffective. I'm saying now as I have been saying all along that blaming 22% of the world'd population for the actions of a few fanatics is bigoted, counterproductive and stupid.
I do not give a damn about that position. I never suggested nor argued that position and I do not care to start.
Oh I know this is another bait and switch tactic. :dunce:
Banning Muslims at the US borders is the Trump suggestion or policy on his website or campaign book that he made (that I vouched no opinion on) after suggesting his idea (that I happened to agree in principle with) about placing a temporary freeze on US Muslim immigrants whilst he fixes the subpar vetting systems used to vet radicalised Muslim extremists from Moderate Muslim immigrants.
I also know that YOU know which is and is not my position. You are both being an idiot and dishonest. Why? :dunce:
Might have been easier just to admit he was being emotional than double down and look like an idiot
-
Here is more lying....yay!!!
It is, however, bigoted to blame the religion for the actions of a few, and while you might not like being called a bigot, it's well within the definition.
I have blamed the religion for the actions of a few have I? Odeon why are you lying again? Care to show where I have said that I blame the entire religion for the actions of a few? I know you can't, just as you have. In fact I have gone out of my way to be absolutely crystal clear that I distinguish Moderate Muslims from radicalised Muslim extremists and have never blamed one for the other.
So you are down to straight out lying.
Why are you lying. Odeon? Why aren't you backing yourself instead? :dunce:
AND
You say the FBI are monitoring a thousand (you started with 900 but whatever) potential groups or individuals.
Okay are you a liar?
Straight up. You just said that I stated "FBI are monitoring a thousand" That is YOUR words quoted above. That is what you said that I said.
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......
Look at what is bolded above. DID I say the FBI is monitoring nearly 1000 US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases or that they are monitoring a thousand? Its one or the other.
Okay so how many exactly? Well Director Comey said 900 active US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases. So is 900 cases NEARLY 1000? YES. Is it ACTUALLY 1000? No.
So let's discuss why you just lied. Is your argument THAT weak you have to rely on lies and switch and bait attempts to give it legs? (Rhetorical question, obviously) :dunce:
AND
How many nutcases with guns do you suppose they are they missing out on? Nationals who can buy the equipment they need legally and then kill gays, police officers or just some kids and teachers at a school? Remind me, how many gun-related homicides are there in the US every year?
900? 1000?
And none of the above means "ignore the radicalised nutcases". It means "don't be a stupid bigoted idiot, try something that can actually make a difference."
This is nothing to do with agreeing in principle with the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigration whilst the vetting system to distinguish between moderate Muslim and radicalised Muslim extremist is introduced.
Nothing AT ALL. You get that. There is nothing to suggest that the gun laws you believe may have a hope in Hell of getting introduced will stop radical Muslim extremists from committing these horribly destructive acts as seen in the examples I quoted already.
-
This is what an emotional argument looks like.
Backstory and context is that I am saying that an idea or concept of Trump's to improve the vetting systems to record and investigate potential Muslim immigrants, (as the system is widely thought to be substandard), AND to place a temporary freeze on Muslim immigrants whilst the system and procedures is being upgraded.
Odeon is trying desperately to relate gun control to this idea so I can take a position that he can argue and take issue with rather than the argument that he called me bigoted over and cannot back.
I underlined the emotional appeal that is devoid, again, of rationality
How many nutcases with guns do you suppose they are they missing out on? Nationals who can buy the equipment they need legally and then kill gays, police officers or just some kids and teachers at a school? Remind me, how many gun-related homicides are there in the US every year?
900? 1000?
And none of the above means "ignore the radicalised nutcases". It means "don't be a stupid bigoted idiot, try something that can actually make a difference."
This is nothing to do with agreeing in principle with the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigration whilst the vetting system to distinguish between moderate Muslim and radicalised Muslim extremist is introduced.
Nothing AT ALL. You get that. There is nothing to suggest that the gun laws you believe may have a hope in Hell of getting introduced will stop radical Muslim extremists from committing these horribly destructive acts as seen in the examples I quoted already.
IF it is basically a gun problem that may work....right?
OKay how did people die in the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. What about in London on July 7 2005? What about in Brussels on March 22, 2016? Take away legal access to guns, does it take away the ideology or the desire or intent? Does it reduce the damage that these extremists can do. What if they get a lorry instead of a gun and line up a crowd of people like has JUST bloody happened?
"Basically a gun problem". Bloody idiot.
"try something that can actually make a difference" The guns laws you wish to get implemented will make a difference? How? How would "I" "try that or make a difference?" What the fuck are you talking about now? Am I American? DO I vote? Do I have a NRA membership to revoke or something?
Problem with emotional arguments Odeon, you say a lot of dumb shit. :dunce:
Am I American?
Do I vote?
Do I have an NRA membership to revoke?
try something that can actually make a difference[/i]
Sounds good, but it was just as emotional as calling me a bigot and is as rationally bankrupt. "Try what?" He doesn't know, he is just for team gun control and is wrapped up in emotion. Nothing he said had facts or rationality. The two positions aren't even related.
Idiotic and a little sad.
-
This is what delusion and going off the reservation looks like
How about handing out gold stars to anyone who promises to behave? Or better yet, ban blacks?
Any other obvious, irrelevant and impossible statements you wish to share with the class, Al?
How about doing neither?
I gotta say for someone who critiques my statements as irrelevant and impossible, you display great levels of hypocrisy.
Do you imagine the there is merit in what you say Odeon? If showing you lying and trying to bait and switch was not enough to disavow you and anyone else the what you write needs to be taken with a grain of salt, then I don't know what else is to be shown
My money is on butthurt, then, probably combined with that other thing.
This is like talking politics with a five year old. It's fun for a while but ultimately utterly futile and a bit nasty.
Its an interesting picture you paint. It's on the heels of you inferring gold stars should be given for good behaviour and blacks should have their guns taken away.
So holding with what I said above, taking what you say with a grain of salt is best.