Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. " Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. " You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. " Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal " I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? " Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Asylum seekers are a hot topic at the moment with very few ideas on the table to legally solve the issues. If you’re against the boats, is your major issue how much this all costs? It is for me." I don't think cost is the issue. I think most people are annoyed by the fundamental injustice of seeing friends and family struggling with the cost of living, and then seeing people arriving illegally and having all their costs met. Yes, I know that asylum seekers only get the basics, and that they don't live in luxury. But the comparison most see is that of a young family working all hours and struggling to make ends meet, and a foreigner that arrives here against the rules and gets room and board with no effort. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible." Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation." I'm sure you're aware that neither war, famine, natural disaster, or climate change are valid reasons to claim asylum. Any such application would be rejected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? " When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it that everyone who's against the boats seems to have voted to start the boats?" Everyone is against the boats. Those that are in favour of immigration are against the risk and loss of life that small boats involve, and those that don't want more immigration are against the small boats bringing more people here. Economic migrants were arriving here long before Brexit was thought of, which is what I'm guessing you are implying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The social care sector appears to be crying out for workers, I'd prefer to have one decent asylum seeker or refugee regardless of colour looking after my aging parents than ten of the toothless knuckle draggers that live where I am from " Sounds a bit racist assuming that the people coming across in boats are only qualified to do low grade care work. As I understand it they are mainly doctors and engineers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? " Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. " There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom " The solution here is quite simple. The UK can adopt the same blasphemy laws and everyone will rub along just fine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom The solution here is quite simple. The UK can adopt the same blasphemy laws and everyone will rub along just fine." The UK has already adopted. Basically violence works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom " So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? " There will be variables. But there will be values that the majority will have. If not, there is no point in calling it a culture. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The social care sector appears to be crying out for workers, I'd prefer to have one decent asylum seeker or refugee regardless of colour looking after my aging parents than ten of the toothless knuckle draggers that live where I am from Sounds a bit racist assuming that the people coming across in boats are only qualified to do low grade care work. As I understand it they are mainly doctors and engineers." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country "You can't read the room. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah yes! UK doesn't need any more doctors or engineers either does it eh? " How many arriving by small boat are doctors and engineers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country
You can't read the room. "It’s not about reading the room, it’s about reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country
You can't read the room.
It’s not about reading the room, it’s about reality. "Present something that shows tangible benefits in favour of small boat crossings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country
You can't read the room.
It’s not about reading the room, it’s about reality.
Present something that shows tangible benefits in favour of small boat crossings. "I’ve been arguing against small boat crossings, that’s what you don’t get. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country
You can't read the room.
It’s not about reading the room, it’s about reality.
Present something that shows tangible benefits in favour of small boat crossings.
I’ve been arguing against small boat crossings, that’s what you don’t get.
Your semantics"My argument is consistent. Small boat crossings are dangerous and fund criminality. They should be stopped, but we can’t stop asylum in order to achieve that (let’s not act like we can). So we need a solution that stops the small boats and their gangs, but allows genuine asylum seekers through. Do you disagree with any of that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country
You can't read the room.
It’s not about reading the room, it’s about reality.
Present something that shows tangible benefits in favour of small boat crossings.
I’ve been arguing against small boat crossings, that’s what you don’t get.
Your semantics
My argument is consistent. Small boat crossings are dangerous and fund criminality. They should be stopped, but we can’t stop asylum in order to achieve that (let’s not act like we can).
So we need a solution that stops the small boats and their gangs, but allows genuine asylum seekers through.
Do you disagree with any of that? "I do not believe you understand the nuances of genuine asylum seeking and the criminality that exploits loopholes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country
You can't read the room.
It’s not about reading the room, it’s about reality.
Present something that shows tangible benefits in favour of small boat crossings.
I’ve been arguing against small boat crossings, that’s what you don’t get.
Your semantics
My argument is consistent. Small boat crossings are dangerous and fund criminality. They should be stopped, but we can’t stop asylum in order to achieve that (let’s not act like we can).
So we need a solution that stops the small boats and their gangs, but allows genuine asylum seekers through.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I do not believe you understand the nuances of genuine asylum seeking and the criminality that exploits loopholes."Oh I absolutely understand it - and that’s a fault with the processing system that we have. Too often it’s demonstrated on here that people don’t understand what asylum seekers are, and when/why their status changes - they hear ‘asylum seeker’ and think it’s bad, but hear ‘refugee’ and are more accepting. Why is that? They’re the same people at different stages of a process. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country
You can't read the room.
It’s not about reading the room, it’s about reality.
Present something that shows tangible benefits in favour of small boat crossings.
I’ve been arguing against small boat crossings, that’s what you don’t get.
Your semantics
My argument is consistent. Small boat crossings are dangerous and fund criminality. They should be stopped, but we can’t stop asylum in order to achieve that (let’s not act like we can).
So we need a solution that stops the small boats and their gangs, but allows genuine asylum seekers through.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I do not believe you understand the nuances of genuine asylum seeking and the criminality that exploits loopholes.
Oh I absolutely understand it - and that’s a fault with the processing system that we have.
Too often it’s demonstrated on here that people don’t understand what asylum seekers are, and when/why their status changes - they hear ‘asylum seeker’ and think it’s bad, but hear ‘refugee’ and are more accepting.
Why is that? They’re the same people at different stages of a process. "lets take this back to the very start of my post, which you have derailed, can you answer the following? What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country
You can't read the room.
It’s not about reading the room, it’s about reality.
Present something that shows tangible benefits in favour of small boat crossings.
I’ve been arguing against small boat crossings, that’s what you don’t get.
Your semantics
My argument is consistent. Small boat crossings are dangerous and fund criminality. They should be stopped, but we can’t stop asylum in order to achieve that (let’s not act like we can).
So we need a solution that stops the small boats and their gangs, but allows genuine asylum seekers through.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I do not believe you understand the nuances of genuine asylum seeking and the criminality that exploits loopholes.
Oh I absolutely understand it - and that’s a fault with the processing system that we have.
Too often it’s demonstrated on here that people don’t understand what asylum seekers are, and when/why their status changes - they hear ‘asylum seeker’ and think it’s bad, but hear ‘refugee’ and are more accepting.
Why is that? They’re the same people at different stages of a process.
lets take this back to the very start of my post, which you have derailed, can you answer the following?
What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid?
What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat?
Where do they live?"If they’re refugees (which we must assume they are because asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work as a rule of thumb), they’ll be doing whatever jobs they get after applying for them. Same as any other citizen who applies for a job and gets it. Their skillset? Another strange question. Maybe they are a labourer, maybe they are a brain surgeon. All sorts of people flee when their safety is at risk. You may as well ask the skillset of asylum seekers if the population of the UK suddenly fled. They’ll be living in whatever accommodation they can afford as refugees too, same as any other citizen. What a bizarre question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country
You can't read the room.
It’s not about reading the room, it’s about reality.
Present something that shows tangible benefits in favour of small boat crossings.
I’ve been arguing against small boat crossings, that’s what you don’t get.
Your semantics
My argument is consistent. Small boat crossings are dangerous and fund criminality. They should be stopped, but we can’t stop asylum in order to achieve that (let’s not act like we can).
So we need a solution that stops the small boats and their gangs, but allows genuine asylum seekers through.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I do not believe you understand the nuances of genuine asylum seeking and the criminality that exploits loopholes.
Oh I absolutely understand it - and that’s a fault with the processing system that we have.
Too often it’s demonstrated on here that people don’t understand what asylum seekers are, and when/why their status changes - they hear ‘asylum seeker’ and think it’s bad, but hear ‘refugee’ and are more accepting.
Why is that? They’re the same people at different stages of a process.
lets take this back to the very start of my post, which you have derailed, can you answer the following?
What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid?
What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat?
Where do they live?
If they’re refugees (which we must assume they are because asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work as a rule of thumb), they’ll be doing whatever jobs they get after applying for them. Same as any other citizen who applies for a job and gets it.
Their skillset? Another strange question. Maybe they are a labourer, maybe they are a brain surgeon. All sorts of people flee when their safety is at risk. You may as well ask the skillset of asylum seekers if the population of the UK suddenly fled.
They’ll be living in whatever accommodation they can afford as refugees too, same as any other citizen.
What a bizarre question."You have no answers in relation to the OP and my questions. Leave it here, as there is nothing to add that would enhance this debate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid? What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat? Where do they live? Can their family join them once they are accepted? All rhetorical of course, as we know virtue and a poor grasp of reality wins the day. Successful asylum seekers, also known as refugees, are allowed to work as citizens are. You caught the last line, right? Rhetorical, because no one wants to deal with the real answers. Well about 51% of refugees work in the U.K. I’m sure we’d all prefer it to be higher. But that might impact upon jobs for citizens. Far from ideal I’m glad you agree it is far from ideal, can you see a solution that is ideal? Unless we see an end to global wars, famine, natural disasters, climate change et al, we’ll always be here to support asylum, as a privileged western nation. It’s good that we provide opportunities for refugees to work, though, wouldn’t you agree? When they reached France all these folk had already escaped the above mentioned The final leg for the uk benefits system. There’s no requirement to claim asylum in any particular first country
You can't read the room.
It’s not about reading the room, it’s about reality.
Present something that shows tangible benefits in favour of small boat crossings.
I’ve been arguing against small boat crossings, that’s what you don’t get.
Your semantics
My argument is consistent. Small boat crossings are dangerous and fund criminality. They should be stopped, but we can’t stop asylum in order to achieve that (let’s not act like we can).
So we need a solution that stops the small boats and their gangs, but allows genuine asylum seekers through.
Do you disagree with any of that?
I do not believe you understand the nuances of genuine asylum seeking and the criminality that exploits loopholes.
Oh I absolutely understand it - and that’s a fault with the processing system that we have.
Too often it’s demonstrated on here that people don’t understand what asylum seekers are, and when/why their status changes - they hear ‘asylum seeker’ and think it’s bad, but hear ‘refugee’ and are more accepting.
Why is that? They’re the same people at different stages of a process.
lets take this back to the very start of my post, which you have derailed, can you answer the following?
What work would they be doing, voluntary or paid?
What is the average skillset of those arriving by small boat?
Where do they live?
If they’re refugees (which we must assume they are because asylum seekers aren’t allowed to work as a rule of thumb), they’ll be doing whatever jobs they get after applying for them. Same as any other citizen who applies for a job and gets it.
Their skillset? Another strange question. Maybe they are a labourer, maybe they are a brain surgeon. All sorts of people flee when their safety is at risk. You may as well ask the skillset of asylum seekers if the population of the UK suddenly fled.
They’ll be living in whatever accommodation they can afford as refugees too, same as any other citizen.
What a bizarre question.
You have no answers in relation to the OP and my questions.
Leave it here, as there is nothing to add that would enhance this debate."Haha I literally just answered your questions! Is it because you don’t know the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it that everyone who's against the boats seems to have voted to start the boats?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? " So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? " You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other." If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise." I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? " So in your mind people share positive values but not negative values? What shared values are men from Afghanistan likely to have if they have spent their first twenty years living there? What is their shared belief in how women should act and behave, and what their role in society should be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? " An individual person may not be. But when you are talking about hundreds of thousands of people for an immigration policy, there is nothing wrong in judging them as a group. If you import hundreds of thousands of people who believe in blasphemy laws, you will get blasphemy laws. They aren't going to magically change their values just because they start breathing the air in the British Isles. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? So in your mind people share positive values but not negative values?" You do like to make assumptions, don’t you? I asked a philosophical question about our response to people arriving. "What shared values are men from Afghanistan likely to have if they have spent their first twenty years living there? What is their shared belief in how women should act and behave, and what their role in society should be?" Afghanistan was once a very forward thinking nation - as late as the ‘70’s. It’s not simply a barren wasteland of poppy fields and ak47 wielding terrorists, no matter what the media portrays. You may as well ask how two kids growing up in the U.K. by very different sets of parents will turn out after 20 years - it’s a ‘how long’s a piece of string’ question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? An individual person may not be. But when you are talking about hundreds of thousands of people for an immigration policy, there is nothing wrong in judging them as a group. If you import hundreds of thousands of people who believe in blasphemy laws, you will get blasphemy laws. They aren't going to magically change their values just because they start breathing the air in the British Isles. " And I’m asking for evidence that they all believe in blasphemy laws - because you have no way of verifying that. And if someone does believe in blasphemy laws and is granted asylum (no guarantee) then you still have your sovereign laws to deal with them in the event that they break laws when they’re here - just as we would be subject to laws in another country that took us in. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? So in your mind people share positive values but not negative values? You do like to make assumptions, don’t you? I asked a philosophical question about our response to people arriving. What shared values are men from Afghanistan likely to have if they have spent their first twenty years living there? What is their shared belief in how women should act and behave, and what their role in society should be? Afghanistan was once a very forward thinking nation - as late as the ‘70’s. It’s not simply a barren wasteland of poppy fields and ak47 wielding terrorists, no matter what the media portrays. You may as well ask how two kids growing up in the U.K. by very different sets of parents will turn out after 20 years - it’s a ‘how long’s a piece of string’ question. " That doesn't answer the question. Every country has gone through historic changes. Today id you bring in about 10 million men from Iran and Afghanistan to UK, do you think women and homosexuals in UK will not face any issues because of that? History says otherwise | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? An individual person may not be. But when you are talking about hundreds of thousands of people for an immigration policy, there is nothing wrong in judging them as a group. If you import hundreds of thousands of people who believe in blasphemy laws, you will get blasphemy laws. They aren't going to magically change their values just because they start breathing the air in the British Isles. And I’m asking for evidence that they all believe in blasphemy laws - because you have no way of verifying that. " Last time there was a survey, 40% of British Muslims wanted Sharia laws in UK. A decent chunk of them even sympathised the Charlie Hebdo attackera. One must be utterly naive or wilfully lying to say that Islam and liberal values can somehow just work together. " And if someone does believe in blasphemy laws and is granted asylum (no guarantee) then you still have your sovereign laws to deal with them in the event that they break laws when they’re here - just as we would be subject to laws in another country that took us in." Your culture is decided based on demographics. UK already has blasphemy laws because of immigration. If you burn their holy book, you will be arrested to "protect public order" which is basically police's way of saying they cannot handle the violence that comes out of it. You see how a small percentage of population can change the society because they are capable of violence? Laws can be changed by democracy. Naz Shah an elected MP openly asked for blasphemy laws. In the last election, 5 independent MPs won purely based on sectarian votes. The whole idea that every culture is same and can just live together and share sweets is a pipe dream that can happen only in the minds of the progressives. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? So in your mind people share positive values but not negative values? You do like to make assumptions, don’t you? I asked a philosophical question about our response to people arriving. What shared values are men from Afghanistan likely to have if they have spent their first twenty years living there? What is their shared belief in how women should act and behave, and what their role in society should be? Afghanistan was once a very forward thinking nation - as late as the ‘70’s. It’s not simply a barren wasteland of poppy fields and ak47 wielding terrorists, no matter what the media portrays. You may as well ask how two kids growing up in the U.K. by very different sets of parents will turn out after 20 years - it’s a ‘how long’s a piece of string’ question. That doesn't answer the question. Every country has gone through historic changes. Today id you bring in about 10 million men from Iran and Afghanistan to UK, do you think women and homosexuals in UK will not face any issues because of that? History says otherwise " If you bring 10 million of any nation you’re going to change the makeup of a country. But we’re not talking about 10 million and that’s a ludicrous comparison. You’re simply demonstrating how exaggerated the problem is being made by the media. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . UK already has blasphemy laws because of immigration. If you burn their holy book, you will be arrested to "protect public order" which is basically police's way of saying they cannot handle the violence that comes out of it. " We don’t have blasphemy laws in the U.K. we have racial/religious incitement laws which would apply equally to burning a bible as a Koran. But you know that already. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? So in your mind people share positive values but not negative values? You do like to make assumptions, don’t you? I asked a philosophical question about our response to people arriving. What shared values are men from Afghanistan likely to have if they have spent their first twenty years living there? What is their shared belief in how women should act and behave, and what their role in society should be? Afghanistan was once a very forward thinking nation - as late as the ‘70’s. It’s not simply a barren wasteland of poppy fields and ak47 wielding terrorists, no matter what the media portrays. You may as well ask how two kids growing up in the U.K. by very different sets of parents will turn out after 20 years - it’s a ‘how long’s a piece of string’ question. That doesn't answer the question. Every country has gone through historic changes. Today id you bring in about 10 million men from Iran and Afghanistan to UK, do you think women and homosexuals in UK will not face any issues because of that? History says otherwise If you bring 10 million of any nation you’re going to change the makeup of a country. But we’re not talking about 10 million and that’s a ludicrous comparison. You’re simply demonstrating how exaggerated the problem is being made by the media." Here you are, moving goal posts yet again instead of answering the question. Do you really think it would result in no societal changes? As for the numbers. UK didn't have that much immigration, but it has already resulted in societal changes I have mentioned above. We practically have blasphemy laws in UK. A teacher from Batley who drew the forbidden picture about 4 years ago is still living in hiding with his family. This is the societal change that a very small amount of immigration has brought to the country. So there is nothing wrong with people asking to stop more of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . UK already has blasphemy laws because of immigration. If you burn their holy book, you will be arrested to "protect public order" which is basically police's way of saying they cannot handle the violence that comes out of it. We don’t have blasphemy laws in the U.K. we have racial/religious incitement laws which would apply equally to burning a bible as a Koran. But you know that already. " Both are practically the same. If you burn the Quran today, you will be arrested. That's blasphemy law. If you aren't arrested, you will get death threats that is a punishment in itself. A teacher from Batley is still living in hiding because he drew the forbidden picture. People in UK lost their freedom of expression because of the immigration policies you support. You want even more of that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? So in your mind people share positive values but not negative values? You do like to make assumptions, don’t you? I asked a philosophical question about our response to people arriving. What shared values are men from Afghanistan likely to have if they have spent their first twenty years living there? What is their shared belief in how women should act and behave, and what their role in society should be? Afghanistan was once a very forward thinking nation - as late as the ‘70’s. It’s not simply a barren wasteland of poppy fields and ak47 wielding terrorists, no matter what the media portrays. You may as well ask how two kids growing up in the U.K. by very different sets of parents will turn out after 20 years - it’s a ‘how long’s a piece of string’ question. That doesn't answer the question. Every country has gone through historic changes. Today id you bring in about 10 million men from Iran and Afghanistan to UK, do you think women and homosexuals in UK will not face any issues because of that? History says otherwise If you bring 10 million of any nation you’re going to change the makeup of a country. But we’re not talking about 10 million and that’s a ludicrous comparison. You’re simply demonstrating how exaggerated the problem is being made by the media. Here you are, moving goal posts yet again instead of answering the question. Do you really think it would result in no societal changes? As for the numbers. UK didn't have that much immigration, but it has already resulted in societal changes I have mentioned above. We practically have blasphemy laws in UK. A teacher from Batley who drew the forbidden picture about 4 years ago is still living in hiding with his family. This is the societal change that a very small amount of immigration has brought to the country. So there is nothing wrong with people asking to stop more of it." Is that the same batley teacher who was cleared and the investigation found failings by the council, the police et al? Where the MP came out in support, lambasted the protestors and where the local mosque assured that the situation would not be repeated? It was an ugly case with failings on all sides, was it not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . UK already has blasphemy laws because of immigration. If you burn their holy book, you will be arrested to "protect public order" which is basically police's way of saying they cannot handle the violence that comes out of it. We don’t have blasphemy laws in the U.K. we have racial/religious incitement laws which would apply equally to burning a bible as a Koran. But you know that already. Both are practically the same. If you burn the Quran today, you will be arrested. That's blasphemy law. If you aren't arrested, you will get death threats that is a punishment in itself. A teacher from Batley is still living in hiding because he drew the forbidden picture. People in UK lost their freedom of expression because of the immigration policies you support. You want even more of that?" Can always rely on the fabs forum for people to jump to conclusions, can’t we? Do you believe that Muslims can integrate peacefully into western society? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re getting away from the discussion with ridiculous claims. Here’s how asylum works - Asylum seekers land by boat, because the previous govt closed off alternative routes. These asylum seekers are then processed, claims are heard. The ones who fail (subject to appeal) are now failed asylum seekers and will face deportation. Those who succeed become refugees and will be given 3-5 years right to remain. They can work, pay taxes and have access to our services. If they stay beyond that 3-5 years without an update to their status, they Have overstayed and like failed asylum seekers should be deported. Now if someone doesn’t want refugees in the country then that’s their opinion and they’re entitled to it. Similarly, it’s acceptable to suggest the system doesn’t work that well - cases take too long to hear, overstayers are hard to catch and deal with. But what we have is the framework of a workable system. It needs tweaks in terms of success criteria, it needs more staff, and it needs to speed up the deportation element particularly- but given the regulations that we are *bound to*, it’s representative of most western nations. " Most people have seen enough to believe that the framework itself does not work. We can't follow these "regulations" blindly like it's a religious book. Times have changed and these frameworks have to change too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? So in your mind people share positive values but not negative values? You do like to make assumptions, don’t you? I asked a philosophical question about our response to people arriving. What shared values are men from Afghanistan likely to have if they have spent their first twenty years living there? What is their shared belief in how women should act and behave, and what their role in society should be? Afghanistan was once a very forward thinking nation - as late as the ‘70’s. It’s not simply a barren wasteland of poppy fields and ak47 wielding terrorists, no matter what the media portrays. You may as well ask how two kids growing up in the U.K. by very different sets of parents will turn out after 20 years - it’s a ‘how long’s a piece of string’ question. That doesn't answer the question. Every country has gone through historic changes. Today id you bring in about 10 million men from Iran and Afghanistan to UK, do you think women and homosexuals in UK will not face any issues because of that? History says otherwise If you bring 10 million of any nation you’re going to change the makeup of a country. But we’re not talking about 10 million and that’s a ludicrous comparison. You’re simply demonstrating how exaggerated the problem is being made by the media. Here you are, moving goal posts yet again instead of answering the question. Do you really think it would result in no societal changes? As for the numbers. UK didn't have that much immigration, but it has already resulted in societal changes I have mentioned above. We practically have blasphemy laws in UK. A teacher from Batley who drew the forbidden picture about 4 years ago is still living in hiding with his family. This is the societal change that a very small amount of immigration has brought to the country. So there is nothing wrong with people asking to stop more of it. Is that the same batley teacher who was cleared and the investigation found failings by the council, the police et al? Where the MP came out in support, lambasted the protestors and where the local mosque assured that the situation would not be repeated? It was an ugly case with failings on all sides, was it not? " So why is he still living in hiding? The local mosque can say all they want. But in the end, that guy still receives death threats. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? So in your mind people share positive values but not negative values? You do like to make assumptions, don’t you? I asked a philosophical question about our response to people arriving. What shared values are men from Afghanistan likely to have if they have spent their first twenty years living there? What is their shared belief in how women should act and behave, and what their role in society should be? Afghanistan was once a very forward thinking nation - as late as the ‘70’s. It’s not simply a barren wasteland of poppy fields and ak47 wielding terrorists, no matter what the media portrays. You may as well ask how two kids growing up in the U.K. by very different sets of parents will turn out after 20 years - it’s a ‘how long’s a piece of string’ question. That doesn't answer the question. Every country has gone through historic changes. Today id you bring in about 10 million men from Iran and Afghanistan to UK, do you think women and homosexuals in UK will not face any issues because of that? History says otherwise If you bring 10 million of any nation you’re going to change the makeup of a country. But we’re not talking about 10 million and that’s a ludicrous comparison. You’re simply demonstrating how exaggerated the problem is being made by the media. Here you are, moving goal posts yet again instead of answering the question. Do you really think it would result in no societal changes? As for the numbers. UK didn't have that much immigration, but it has already resulted in societal changes I have mentioned above. We practically have blasphemy laws in UK. A teacher from Batley who drew the forbidden picture about 4 years ago is still living in hiding with his family. This is the societal change that a very small amount of immigration has brought to the country. So there is nothing wrong with people asking to stop more of it. Is that the same batley teacher who was cleared and the investigation found failings by the council, the police et al? Where the MP came out in support, lambasted the protestors and where the local mosque assured that the situation would not be repeated? It was an ugly case with failings on all sides, was it not? So why is he still living in hiding? The local mosque can say all they want. But in the end, that guy still receives death threats." Because the poor guy felt terrorised and let down. Understandable. Like any victim of serious crime, that stays with you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . UK already has blasphemy laws because of immigration. If you burn their holy book, you will be arrested to "protect public order" which is basically police's way of saying they cannot handle the violence that comes out of it. We don’t have blasphemy laws in the U.K. we have racial/religious incitement laws which would apply equally to burning a bible as a Koran. But you know that already. Both are practically the same. If you burn the Quran today, you will be arrested. That's blasphemy law. If you aren't arrested, you will get death threats that is a punishment in itself. A teacher from Batley is still living in hiding because he drew the forbidden picture. People in UK lost their freedom of expression because of the immigration policies you support. You want even more of that? Can always rely on the fabs forum for people to jump to conclusions, can’t we? Do you believe that Muslims can integrate peacefully into western society? " They haven't. If they did, the teacher from Batley wouldn't still be living in hiding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re getting away from the discussion with ridiculous claims. Here’s how asylum works - Asylum seekers land by boat, because the previous govt closed off alternative routes. These asylum seekers are then processed, claims are heard. The ones who fail (subject to appeal) are now failed asylum seekers and will face deportation. Those who succeed become refugees and will be given 3-5 years right to remain. They can work, pay taxes and have access to our services. If they stay beyond that 3-5 years without an update to their status, they Have overstayed and like failed asylum seekers should be deported. Now if someone doesn’t want refugees in the country then that’s their opinion and they’re entitled to it. Similarly, it’s acceptable to suggest the system doesn’t work that well - cases take too long to hear, overstayers are hard to catch and deal with. But what we have is the framework of a workable system. It needs tweaks in terms of success criteria, it needs more staff, and it needs to speed up the deportation element particularly- but given the regulations that we are *bound to*, it’s representative of most western nations. Most people have seen enough to believe that the framework itself does not work. We can't follow these "regulations" blindly like it's a religious book. Times have changed and these frameworks have to change too." Or….the framework just needs enforcing correctly, because we’re not going to get out of our responsibility and signatories. You may not like it, but that’s the truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? So in your mind people share positive values but not negative values? You do like to make assumptions, don’t you? I asked a philosophical question about our response to people arriving. What shared values are men from Afghanistan likely to have if they have spent their first twenty years living there? What is their shared belief in how women should act and behave, and what their role in society should be? Afghanistan was once a very forward thinking nation - as late as the ‘70’s. It’s not simply a barren wasteland of poppy fields and ak47 wielding terrorists, no matter what the media portrays. You may as well ask how two kids growing up in the U.K. by very different sets of parents will turn out after 20 years - it’s a ‘how long’s a piece of string’ question. That doesn't answer the question. Every country has gone through historic changes. Today id you bring in about 10 million men from Iran and Afghanistan to UK, do you think women and homosexuals in UK will not face any issues because of that? History says otherwise If you bring 10 million of any nation you’re going to change the makeup of a country. But we’re not talking about 10 million and that’s a ludicrous comparison. You’re simply demonstrating how exaggerated the problem is being made by the media. Here you are, moving goal posts yet again instead of answering the question. Do you really think it would result in no societal changes? As for the numbers. UK didn't have that much immigration, but it has already resulted in societal changes I have mentioned above. We practically have blasphemy laws in UK. A teacher from Batley who drew the forbidden picture about 4 years ago is still living in hiding with his family. This is the societal change that a very small amount of immigration has brought to the country. So there is nothing wrong with people asking to stop more of it. Is that the same batley teacher who was cleared and the investigation found failings by the council, the police et al? Where the MP came out in support, lambasted the protestors and where the local mosque assured that the situation would not be repeated? It was an ugly case with failings on all sides, was it not? So why is he still living in hiding? The local mosque can say all they want. But in the end, that guy still receives death threats. Because the poor guy felt terrorised and let down. Understandable. Like any victim of serious crime, that stays with you. " So if he comes out today in the open, would you promise his safety? Before you reply to that, I would like you to read what happened to the translators of Satanic Verses from Japan, Norway and Turkey | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . UK already has blasphemy laws because of immigration. If you burn their holy book, you will be arrested to "protect public order" which is basically police's way of saying they cannot handle the violence that comes out of it. We don’t have blasphemy laws in the U.K. we have racial/religious incitement laws which would apply equally to burning a bible as a Koran. But you know that already. Both are practically the same. If you burn the Quran today, you will be arrested. That's blasphemy law. If you aren't arrested, you will get death threats that is a punishment in itself. A teacher from Batley is still living in hiding because he drew the forbidden picture. People in UK lost their freedom of expression because of the immigration policies you support. You want even more of that? Can always rely on the fabs forum for people to jump to conclusions, can’t we? Do you believe that Muslims can integrate peacefully into western society? They haven't. If they did, the teacher from Batley wouldn't still be living in hiding." ‘They haven’t’ - all Muslims have failed to integrate? Or just a minority? Do you blame all Christians for catholic child abuse? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re getting away from the discussion with ridiculous claims. Here’s how asylum works - Asylum seekers land by boat, because the previous govt closed off alternative routes. These asylum seekers are then processed, claims are heard. The ones who fail (subject to appeal) are now failed asylum seekers and will face deportation. Those who succeed become refugees and will be given 3-5 years right to remain. They can work, pay taxes and have access to our services. If they stay beyond that 3-5 years without an update to their status, they Have overstayed and like failed asylum seekers should be deported. Now if someone doesn’t want refugees in the country then that’s their opinion and they’re entitled to it. Similarly, it’s acceptable to suggest the system doesn’t work that well - cases take too long to hear, overstayers are hard to catch and deal with. But what we have is the framework of a workable system. It needs tweaks in terms of success criteria, it needs more staff, and it needs to speed up the deportation element particularly- but given the regulations that we are *bound to*, it’s representative of most western nations. Most people have seen enough to believe that the framework itself does not work. We can't follow these "regulations" blindly like it's a religious book. Times have changed and these frameworks have to change too. Or….the framework just needs enforcing correctly, because we’re not going to get out of our responsibility and signatories. You may not like it, but that’s the truth." Who sets these responsibilities? Any country has the right to get out of these frameworks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . UK already has blasphemy laws because of immigration. If you burn their holy book, you will be arrested to "protect public order" which is basically police's way of saying they cannot handle the violence that comes out of it. We don’t have blasphemy laws in the U.K. we have racial/religious incitement laws which would apply equally to burning a bible as a Koran. But you know that already. Both are practically the same. If you burn the Quran today, you will be arrested. That's blasphemy law. If you aren't arrested, you will get death threats that is a punishment in itself. A teacher from Batley is still living in hiding because he drew the forbidden picture. People in UK lost their freedom of expression because of the immigration policies you support. You want even more of that? Can always rely on the fabs forum for people to jump to conclusions, can’t we? Do you believe that Muslims can integrate peacefully into western society? They haven't. If they did, the teacher from Batley wouldn't still be living in hiding. ‘They haven’t’ - all Muslims have failed to integrate? Or just a minority? Do you blame all Christians for catholic child abuse? " Not all. But enough numbers have failed to integrate to a point that a teacher has to live in hiding because he drew a picture. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not all cultures are compatible. Really? I’d say that some individuals or sects are incompatible but whole cultures? You’re sure? Yes. Cultures which ask for blasphemy laws won't fit well with cultures which believe in individual freedom So cultures are a hive-mind with no variables in thought or behaviour? So you think that if you travelled to Iceland and Saudi Arabia you would have no idea that you were in different places? If the entire population of the UK were replaced tomorrow with the population of Syria, you think you wouldn’t tell the difference? The Syrians would start behaving like they were British because they’d started living on a different piece of land? You seem to have comprehension issues. You’re already proving my point - not everyone from the same culture thinks, acts, talks the same as each other. If you import a hundred thousand people from one culture, a big chunk of them will have some values in common. That's the definition of culture - having shared values. It's utterly naive to think otherwise. I agree, that’s likely to be the case - some shared values. Not all. Do you think people fear ‘outsiders’ because they pre-judge those shared values and cultures? So in your mind people share positive values but not negative values? You do like to make assumptions, don’t you? I asked a philosophical question about our response to people arriving. What shared values are men from Afghanistan likely to have if they have spent their first twenty years living there? What is their shared belief in how women should act and behave, and what their role in society should be? Afghanistan was once a very forward thinking nation - as late as the ‘70’s. It’s not simply a barren wasteland of poppy fields and ak47 wielding terrorists, no matter what the media portrays. You may as well ask how two kids growing up in the U.K. by very different sets of parents will turn out after 20 years - it’s a ‘how long’s a piece of string’ question. That doesn't answer the question. Every country has gone through historic changes. Today id you bring in about 10 million men from Iran and Afghanistan to UK, do you think women and homosexuals in UK will not face any issues because of that? History says otherwise If you bring 10 million of any nation you’re going to change the makeup of a country. But we’re not talking about 10 million and that’s a ludicrous comparison. You’re simply demonstrating how exaggerated the problem is being made by the media. Here you are, moving goal posts yet again instead of answering the question. Do you really think it would result in no societal changes? As for the numbers. UK didn't have that much immigration, but it has already resulted in societal changes I have mentioned above. We practically have blasphemy laws in UK. A teacher from Batley who drew the forbidden picture about 4 years ago is still living in hiding with his family. This is the societal change that a very small amount of immigration has brought to the country. So there is nothing wrong with people asking to stop more of it. Is that the same batley teacher who was cleared and the investigation found failings by the council, the police et al? Where the MP came out in support, lambasted the protestors and where the local mosque assured that the situation would not be repeated? It was an ugly case with failings on all sides, was it not? So why is he still living in hiding? The local mosque can say all they want. But in the end, that guy still receives death threats. Because the poor guy felt terrorised and let down. Understandable. Like any victim of serious crime, that stays with you. So if he comes out today in the open, would you promise his safety? Before you reply to that, I would like you to read what happened to the translators of Satanic Verses from Japan, Norway and Turkey" I would expect the law to provide his safety, because that’s how things are meant to work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . UK already has blasphemy laws because of immigration. If you burn their holy book, you will be arrested to "protect public order" which is basically police's way of saying they cannot handle the violence that comes out of it. We don’t have blasphemy laws in the U.K. we have racial/religious incitement laws which would apply equally to burning a bible as a Koran. But you know that already. Both are practically the same. If you burn the Quran today, you will be arrested. That's blasphemy law. If you aren't arrested, you will get death threats that is a punishment in itself. A teacher from Batley is still living in hiding because he drew the forbidden picture. People in UK lost their freedom of expression because of the immigration policies you support. You want even more of that? Can always rely on the fabs forum for people to jump to conclusions, can’t we? Do you believe that Muslims can integrate peacefully into western society? They haven't. If they did, the teacher from Batley wouldn't still be living in hiding. ‘They haven’t’ - all Muslims have failed to integrate? Or just a minority? Do you blame all Christians for catholic child abuse? Not all. But enough numbers have failed to integrate to a point that a teacher has to live in hiding because he drew a picture." So you’re judging an entire religion based upon one case? And you didn’t answer my question about catholic child abuse. Do you judge Catholicism for that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re getting away from the discussion with ridiculous claims. Here’s how asylum works - Asylum seekers land by boat, because the previous govt closed off alternative routes. These asylum seekers are then processed, claims are heard. The ones who fail (subject to appeal) are now failed asylum seekers and will face deportation. Those who succeed become refugees and will be given 3-5 years right to remain. They can work, pay taxes and have access to our services. If they stay beyond that 3-5 years without an update to their status, they Have overstayed and like failed asylum seekers should be deported. Now if someone doesn’t want refugees in the country then that’s their opinion and they’re entitled to it. Similarly, it’s acceptable to suggest the system doesn’t work that well - cases take too long to hear, overstayers are hard to catch and deal with. But what we have is the framework of a workable system. It needs tweaks in terms of success criteria, it needs more staff, and it needs to speed up the deportation element particularly- but given the regulations that we are *bound to*, it’s representative of most western nations. Most people have seen enough to believe that the framework itself does not work. We can't follow these "regulations" blindly like it's a religious book. Times have changed and these frameworks have to change too. Or….the framework just needs enforcing correctly, because we’re not going to get out of our responsibility and signatories. You may not like it, but that’s the truth. Who sets these responsibilities? Any country has the right to get out of these frameworks " Well not without leaving the ECHR, which would have myriad knock-on effects and require an act of parliament, and agreement from the devolved governments, and still wouldn’t fully remove us from the 1951 refugee convention. If you want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ this problem, you’re using a piledriver to crack a peanut. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . UK already has blasphemy laws because of immigration. If you burn their holy book, you will be arrested to "protect public order" which is basically police's way of saying they cannot handle the violence that comes out of it. We don’t have blasphemy laws in the U.K. we have racial/religious incitement laws which would apply equally to burning a bible as a Koran. But you know that already. Both are practically the same. If you burn the Quran today, you will be arrested. That's blasphemy law. If you aren't arrested, you will get death threats that is a punishment in itself. A teacher from Batley is still living in hiding because he drew the forbidden picture. People in UK lost their freedom of expression because of the immigration policies you support. You want even more of that? Can always rely on the fabs forum for people to jump to conclusions, can’t we? Do you believe that Muslims can integrate peacefully into western society? They haven't. If they did, the teacher from Batley wouldn't still be living in hiding. ‘They haven’t’ - all Muslims have failed to integrate? Or just a minority? Do you blame all Christians for catholic child abuse? Not all. But enough numbers have failed to integrate to a point that a teacher has to live in hiding because he drew a picture. So you’re judging an entire religion based upon one case? " I am judging the religion based on the behaviour of many. But anyway my point was that immigration results in societal changes and I have shown you with evidence. Today, no one would dare to draw the picture in public because that would result in them getting killed. The country lost freedom of expression because of immigration. " And you didn’t answer my question about catholic child abuse. Do you judge Catholicism for that?" I would worry about sending of the children in my family in situations where they are alone with catholic priests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We’re getting away from the discussion with ridiculous claims. Here’s how asylum works - Asylum seekers land by boat, because the previous govt closed off alternative routes. These asylum seekers are then processed, claims are heard. The ones who fail (subject to appeal) are now failed asylum seekers and will face deportation. Those who succeed become refugees and will be given 3-5 years right to remain. They can work, pay taxes and have access to our services. If they stay beyond that 3-5 years without an update to their status, they Have overstayed and like failed asylum seekers should be deported. Now if someone doesn’t want refugees in the country then that’s their opinion and they’re entitled to it. Similarly, it’s acceptable to suggest the system doesn’t work that well - cases take too long to hear, overstayers are hard to catch and deal with. But what we have is the framework of a workable system. It needs tweaks in terms of success criteria, it needs more staff, and it needs to speed up the deportation element particularly- but given the regulations that we are *bound to*, it’s representative of most western nations. Most people have seen enough to believe that the framework itself does not work. We can't follow these "regulations" blindly like it's a religious book. Times have changed and these frameworks have to change too. Or….the framework just needs enforcing correctly, because we’re not going to get out of our responsibility and signatories. You may not like it, but that’s the truth. Who sets these responsibilities? Any country has the right to get out of these frameworks Well not without leaving the ECHR, which would have myriad knock-on effects and require an act of parliament, and agreement from the devolved governments, and still wouldn’t fully remove us from the 1951 refugee convention. If you want to leave the ECHR to ‘solve’ this problem, you’re using a piledriver to crack a peanut. " If the ECHR is totally inflexible, there is no point in being in it. End of the day, self protection is more important than helping others | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If the ECHR is totally inflexible, there is no point in being in it. End of the day, self protection is more important than helping others " If you want to be like North Korea, sure. If you want to be an advanced nation with a role to play in the world, then no. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you didn’t answer my question about catholic child abuse. Do you judge Catholicism for that? I would worry about sending of the children in my family in situations where they are alone with catholic priests." You answered a different question, so I’ll repeat it. Do you judge Catholicism for the acts of a minority of child abusers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If the ECHR is totally inflexible, there is no point in being in it. End of the day, self protection is more important than helping others If you want to be like North Korea, sure. If you want to be an advanced nation with a role to play in the world, then no." There are numerous countries that are outside of ECHR which aren't North Korea  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If the ECHR is totally inflexible, there is no point in being in it. End of the day, self protection is more important than helping others If you want to be like North Korea, sure. If you want to be an advanced nation with a role to play in the world, then no. There are numerous countries that are outside of ECHR which aren't North Korea "Sorry, I though it was acceptable to single out one case to demonstrate an example, since you’ve been doing it all morning. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse." I’m struggling to recall the last time a terrorist attack was carried out by a Buddhist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you didn’t answer my question about catholic child abuse. Do you judge Catholicism for that? I would worry about sending of the children in my family in situations where they are alone with catholic priests. You answered a different question, so I’ll repeat it. Do you judge Catholicism for the acts of a minority of child abusers? " If Catholic population is disproportionately responsible for child abuse in this country, I will judge them for that. If the catholic book teaches that child abuse is good, I will judge them for that. If Catholics kill people or send death threats for blasphemy, I will judge them for that too. If increasing catholic immigration results in societal changes, I will be against it. That's exactly what I did with Islamic immigration. There are clear societal changes. Even politicians who were pro-immigration in the past have admitted that it was a huge mistake. Angela Merkel, the social democrats in Sweden, all admitted that allowing so many people from different cultures was a mistake and it negatively affected their countries. It's only the progressives in the internet who still pretend like nothing is wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse." Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. I’m struggling to recall the last time a terrorist attack was carried out by a Buddhist." Tokyo Sarin attack. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble "We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you didn’t answer my question about catholic child abuse. Do you judge Catholicism for that? I would worry about sending of the children in my family in situations where they are alone with catholic priests. You answered a different question, so I’ll repeat it. Do you judge Catholicism for the acts of a minority of child abusers? If Catholic population is disproportionately responsible for child abuse in this country, I will judge them for that. If the catholic book teaches that child abuse is good, I will judge them for that. If Catholics kill people or send death threats for blasphemy, I will judge them for that too." I see, this post reveals very much about your bias. I suspected it would, so thanks for confirming | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble "Someone lobbed Molotov cocktails in Boulder, Colorado yesterday at a small peace protest. Six people aged 67 to 88 with burns, like the prophet says, burn the infidels. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you didn’t answer my question about catholic child abuse. Do you judge Catholicism for that? I would worry about sending of the children in my family in situations where they are alone with catholic priests. You answered a different question, so I’ll repeat it. Do you judge Catholicism for the acts of a minority of child abusers? If Catholic population is disproportionately responsible for child abuse in this country, I will judge them for that. If the catholic book teaches that child abuse is good, I will judge them for that. If Catholics kill people or send death threats for blasphemy, I will judge them for that too. I see, this post reveals very much about your bias. I suspected it would, so thanks for confirming "Typical
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up. "Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you didn’t answer my question about catholic child abuse. Do you judge Catholicism for that? I would worry about sending of the children in my family in situations where they are alone with catholic priests. You answered a different question, so I’ll repeat it. Do you judge Catholicism for the acts of a minority of child abusers? If Catholic population is disproportionately responsible for child abuse in this country, I will judge them for that. If the catholic book teaches that child abuse is good, I will judge them for that. If Catholics kill people or send death threats for blasphemy, I will judge them for that too. I see, this post reveals very much about your bias. I suspected it would, so thanks for confirming
Typical
"Hey man, it’s ok. You’re allowed to make all the judgements you like regardless of how fair or unfair they are | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life? "People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise? "Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question."If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen? Nothing. If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement. Not a difficult concept to understand | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you didn’t answer my question about catholic child abuse. Do you judge Catholicism for that? I would worry about sending of the children in my family in situations where they are alone with catholic priests. You answered a different question, so I’ll repeat it. Do you judge Catholicism for the acts of a minority of child abusers? If Catholic population is disproportionately responsible for child abuse in this country, I will judge them for that. If the catholic book teaches that child abuse is good, I will judge them for that. If Catholics kill people or send death threats for blasphemy, I will judge them for that too. I see, this post reveals very much about your bias. I suspected it would, so thanks for confirming
Typical
Hey man, it’s ok. You’re allowed to make all the judgements you like regardless of how fair or unfair they are "Religions are ideologies at the end of the day. You can judge religions just like you can judge capitalism, socialism and fascism. If we are talking about immigration, we need to think about the values of these cultures. Even if 40% of Muslims believe they want Sharia laws in UK, if you have 1 million Muslims, you have 400,000 who have these views and that's bad. This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. These are evidences for societal impact. If you prefer being blind to actual evidence and follow your ideology, that's fair | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
"People have burned Bible in public and haven't been arrested. And people who burn other books don't receive death threats. It's not a difficult concept to understand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you didn’t answer my question about catholic child abuse. Do you judge Catholicism for that? I would worry about sending of the children in my family in situations where they are alone with catholic priests. You answered a different question, so I’ll repeat it. Do you judge Catholicism for the acts of a minority of child abusers? If Catholic population is disproportionately responsible for child abuse in this country, I will judge them for that. If the catholic book teaches that child abuse is good, I will judge them for that. If Catholics kill people or send death threats for blasphemy, I will judge them for that too. I see, this post reveals very much about your bias. I suspected it would, so thanks for confirming
Typical
Hey man, it’s ok. You’re allowed to make all the judgements you like regardless of how fair or unfair they are
Religions are ideologies at the end of the day. You can judge religions just like you can judge capitalism, socialism and fascism.
If we are talking about immigration, we need to think about the values of these cultures. Even if 40% of Muslims believe they want Sharia laws in UK, if you have 1 million Muslims, you have 400,000 who have these views and that's bad. This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. These are evidences for societal impact.
If you prefer being blind to actual evidence and follow your ideology, that's fair "So we have 1 MP representing their constituency in a commons of 650. That MP would also likely lose the whip if they voted against their party - and remember that blasphemy laws were removed in 2008 under Labour. Do you believe that MP’s shouldn’t be the voice of their constituents in parliament? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
People have burned Bible in public and haven't been arrested. And people who burn other books don't receive death threats. It's not a difficult concept to understand. "Well apparently it is, because you’ve floundered through all of this with your inherent bias. It’s ok, we all have u*conscious bias, it’s human nature. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
"If someone burns a bible, the police will do nothing. If they did feel compelled to act, they would only act because they were concerned about being seen as biased in favour of Muslims, not because they felt there was anything inherently wrong in the bible burning itself. Aside from police action, if I burn a bible I face no social consequences. If I burn a Koran, I will probably live in fear of reprisals for the rest of my life, and may have to go into hiding, like the Batley school teacher, who has now been forced into hiding for over three years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
If someone burns a bible, the police will do nothing. If they did feel compelled to act, they would only act because they were concerned about being seen as biased in favour of Muslims, not because they felt there was anything inherently wrong in the bible burning itself.
Aside from police action, if I burn a bible I face no social consequences.
If I burn a Koran, I will probably live in fear of reprisals for the rest of my life, and may have to go into hiding, like the Batley school teacher, who has now been forced into hiding for over three years."And since burning the bible and burning the Koran are literally the same offence (incitement) what you’re describing is a problem of policing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. " If a reform MP (for example) started talking about overtly anti-Islamic ideology in the commons, because it was the views of 40% of his constituents, would you feel differently? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you didn’t answer my question about catholic child abuse. Do you judge Catholicism for that? I would worry about sending of the children in my family in situations where they are alone with catholic priests. You answered a different question, so I’ll repeat it. Do you judge Catholicism for the acts of a minority of child abusers? If Catholic population is disproportionately responsible for child abuse in this country, I will judge them for that. If the catholic book teaches that child abuse is good, I will judge them for that. If Catholics kill people or send death threats for blasphemy, I will judge them for that too. I see, this post reveals very much about your bias. I suspected it would, so thanks for confirming
Typical
Hey man, it’s ok. You’re allowed to make all the judgements you like regardless of how fair or unfair they are
Religions are ideologies at the end of the day. You can judge religions just like you can judge capitalism, socialism and fascism.
If we are talking about immigration, we need to think about the values of these cultures. Even if 40% of Muslims believe they want Sharia laws in UK, if you have 1 million Muslims, you have 400,000 who have these views and that's bad. This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. These are evidences for societal impact.
If you prefer being blind to actual evidence and follow your ideology, that's fair
So we have 1 MP representing their constituency in a commons of 650. That MP would also likely lose the whip if they voted against their party - and remember that blasphemy laws were removed in 2008 under Labour.
"Again, jumping across goal posts I see. Today, Islamic population is still minimal and yet we ended up with an MP who is supportive of blasphemy laws. And Labour created other laws like the religious hatred act which are de-facto blasphemy laws. Do you really believe that if they remove a law named blasphemy laws, the blasphemy laws don't exist? Oh my sweet summer child. " Do you believe that MP’s shouldn’t be the voice of their constituents in parliament? " I never said so. I am just saying that if you have enough migration from certain cultures, they will start pushing their own cultural values on the society democratically or through other means. Entire history is an example of that. It's just human nature. And I don't want to live in a society with Islamic values. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. If a reform MP (for example) started talking about overtly anti-Islamic ideology in the commons, because it was the views of 40% of his constituents, would you feel differently? " I wouldn't mind anyone talking against religions at all. If a reform MP talks about punishing gays because of 40% of his constituents, then I would have a similar problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
If someone burns a bible, the police will do nothing. If they did feel compelled to act, they would only act because they were concerned about being seen as biased in favour of Muslims, not because they felt there was anything inherently wrong in the bible burning itself.
Aside from police action, if I burn a bible I face no social consequences.
If I burn a Koran, I will probably live in fear of reprisals for the rest of my life, and may have to go into hiding, like the Batley school teacher, who has now been forced into hiding for over three years.
And since burning the bible and burning the Koran are literally the same offence (incitement) what you’re describing is a problem of policing. "The law is written in terms of "protecting public order". If someone burns a Bible, no one is going to disrupt public order. But if someone burns the Quran, there is violent repurcussions. I also see that you are intentionally ignoring the death threat aspect  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
If someone burns a bible, the police will do nothing. If they did feel compelled to act, they would only act because they were concerned about being seen as biased in favour of Muslims, not because they felt there was anything inherently wrong in the bible burning itself.
Aside from police action, if I burn a bible I face no social consequences.
If I burn a Koran, I will probably live in fear of reprisals for the rest of my life, and may have to go into hiding, like the Batley school teacher, who has now been forced into hiding for over three years.
And since burning the bible and burning the Koran are literally the same offence (incitement) what you’re describing is a problem of policing.
The law is written in terms of "protecting public order". If someone burns a Bible, no one is going to disrupt public order. But if someone burns the Quran, there is violent repurcussions. I also see that you are intentionally ignoring the death threat aspect "I’m not ignoring anything. The law is the law for all - if that’s not applied it’s a failure of policing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. If a reform MP (for example) started talking about overtly anti-Islamic ideology in the commons, because it was the views of 40% of his constituents, would you feel differently? I wouldn't mind anyone talking against religions at all. If a reform MP talks about punishing gays because of 40% of his constituents, then I would have a similar problem " So your views on MP’s representation of their constituents is based upon your own biases? You’re so close to getting it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. If a reform MP (for example) started talking about overtly anti-Islamic ideology in the commons, because it was the views of 40% of his constituents, would you feel differently? I wouldn't mind anyone talking against religions at all. If a reform MP talks about punishing gays because of 40% of his constituents, then I would have a similar problem So your views on MP’s representation of their constituents is based upon your own biases? You’re so close to getting it "How is it bias? If 40% of a constituency believe that homosexuals have to be punished and votes for an MP based on that, I shouldn't judge them? That's some serious mental gymnastics you are doing there  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
If someone burns a bible, the police will do nothing. If they did feel compelled to act, they would only act because they were concerned about being seen as biased in favour of Muslims, not because they felt there was anything inherently wrong in the bible burning itself.
Aside from police action, if I burn a bible I face no social consequences.
If I burn a Koran, I will probably live in fear of reprisals for the rest of my life, and may have to go into hiding, like the Batley school teacher, who has now been forced into hiding for over three years.
And since burning the bible and burning the Koran are literally the same offence (incitement) what you’re describing is a problem of policing.
The law is written in terms of "protecting public order". If someone burns a Bible, no one is going to disrupt public order. But if someone burns the Quran, there is violent repurcussions. I also see that you are intentionally ignoring the death threat aspect
I’m not ignoring anything. The law is the law for all - if that’s not applied it’s a failure of policing.
"So why don't you answer, burning which of the books will result in death threats? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
If someone burns a bible, the police will do nothing. If they did feel compelled to act, they would only act because they were concerned about being seen as biased in favour of Muslims, not because they felt there was anything inherently wrong in the bible burning itself.
Aside from police action, if I burn a bible I face no social consequences.
If I burn a Koran, I will probably live in fear of reprisals for the rest of my life, and may have to go into hiding, like the Batley school teacher, who has now been forced into hiding for over three years.
And since burning the bible and burning the Koran are literally the same offence (incitement) what you’re describing is a problem of policing.
The law is written in terms of "protecting public order". If someone burns a Bible, no one is going to disrupt public order. But if someone burns the Quran, there is violent repurcussions. I also see that you are intentionally ignoring the death threat aspect
I’m not ignoring anything. The law is the law for all - if that’s not applied it’s a failure of policing.
So why don't you answer, burning which of the books will result in death threats? "It could be any of them, could it not? We have religious extremists of all varieties. ‘Will’ is a statement of certainly, but your question is one of subjectivity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. If a reform MP (for example) started talking about overtly anti-Islamic ideology in the commons, because it was the views of 40% of his constituents, would you feel differently? I wouldn't mind anyone talking against religions at all. If a reform MP talks about punishing gays because of 40% of his constituents, then I would have a similar problem So your views on MP’s representation of their constituents is based upon your own biases? You’re so close to getting it
How is it bias? If 40% of a constituency believe that homosexuals have to be punished and votes for an MP based on that, I shouldn't judge them? That's some serious mental gymnastics you are doing there "You’re the one doing gymnastics changing your views on whether a portion of the electorate should have their views represented or not based upon your own opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. If a reform MP (for example) started talking about overtly anti-Islamic ideology in the commons, because it was the views of 40% of his constituents, would you feel differently? I wouldn't mind anyone talking against religions at all. If a reform MP talks about punishing gays because of 40% of his constituents, then I would have a similar problem So your views on MP’s representation of their constituents is based upon your own biases? You’re so close to getting it
How is it bias? If 40% of a constituency believe that homosexuals have to be punished and votes for an MP based on that, I shouldn't judge them? That's some serious mental gymnastics you are doing there "I thought you were all about free speech, no? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And today that bandwagon is about blindly defending Islam irrespective of any evidence shown to their face." Only one person here is singling out a religion. Why is that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. If a reform MP (for example) started talking about overtly anti-Islamic ideology in the commons, because it was the views of 40% of his constituents, would you feel differently? I wouldn't mind anyone talking against religions at all. If a reform MP talks about punishing gays because of 40% of his constituents, then I would have a similar problem So your views on MP’s representation of their constituents is based upon your own biases? You’re so close to getting it
How is it bias? If 40% of a constituency believe that homosexuals have to be punished and votes for an MP based on that, I shouldn't judge them? That's some serious mental gymnastics you are doing there
I thought you were all about free speech, no? "Yes I am. And what I said is not inconsistent with free speech. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. If a reform MP (for example) started talking about overtly anti-Islamic ideology in the commons, because it was the views of 40% of his constituents, would you feel differently? I wouldn't mind anyone talking against religions at all. If a reform MP talks about punishing gays because of 40% of his constituents, then I would have a similar problem So your views on MP’s representation of their constituents is based upon your own biases? You’re so close to getting it
How is it bias? If 40% of a constituency believe that homosexuals have to be punished and votes for an MP based on that, I shouldn't judge them? That's some serious mental gymnastics you are doing there
I thought you were all about free speech, no?
Yes I am. And what I said is not inconsistent with free speech. "So you’re accepting that free speech comes with consequences and a responsibility to use it correctly? It took months, but we got there in the end | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. If a reform MP (for example) started talking about overtly anti-Islamic ideology in the commons, because it was the views of 40% of his constituents, would you feel differently? I wouldn't mind anyone talking against religions at all. If a reform MP talks about punishing gays because of 40% of his constituents, then I would have a similar problem So your views on MP’s representation of their constituents is based upon your own biases? You’re so close to getting it
How is it bias? If 40% of a constituency believe that homosexuals have to be punished and votes for an MP based on that, I shouldn't judge them? That's some serious mental gymnastics you are doing there
You’re the one doing gymnastics changing your views on whether a portion of the electorate should have their views represented or not based upon your own opinion. "Pretty sure I addressed this already. Electorate has the right to have their views represented. But I have the right to judge them for that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. If a reform MP (for example) started talking about overtly anti-Islamic ideology in the commons, because it was the views of 40% of his constituents, would you feel differently? I wouldn't mind anyone talking against religions at all. If a reform MP talks about punishing gays because of 40% of his constituents, then I would have a similar problem So your views on MP’s representation of their constituents is based upon your own biases? You’re so close to getting it
How is it bias? If 40% of a constituency believe that homosexuals have to be punished and votes for an MP based on that, I shouldn't judge them? That's some serious mental gymnastics you are doing there
I thought you were all about free speech, no?
Yes I am. And what I said is not inconsistent with free speech.
So you’re accepting that free speech comes with consequences and a responsibility to use it correctly?
It took months, but we got there in the end "You are getting desperate here You are imagining stuff and making up things I never said | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And today that bandwagon is about blindly defending Islam irrespective of any evidence shown to their face. Only one person here is singling out a religion. Why is that? " Because I showed you numerous evidences. Burning which religious book will result in you getting death threats? A question you have been trying hard to avoid. You are getting closer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is how we ended up having Naz Shah as MP who is openly asking for blasphemy laws. If a reform MP (for example) started talking about overtly anti-Islamic ideology in the commons, because it was the views of 40% of his constituents, would you feel differently? I wouldn't mind anyone talking against religions at all. If a reform MP talks about punishing gays because of 40% of his constituents, then I would have a similar problem So your views on MP’s representation of their constituents is based upon your own biases? You’re so close to getting it
How is it bias? If 40% of a constituency believe that homosexuals have to be punished and votes for an MP based on that, I shouldn't judge them? That's some serious mental gymnastics you are doing there
I thought you were all about free speech, no?
Yes I am. And what I said is not inconsistent with free speech.
So you’re accepting that free speech comes with consequences and a responsibility to use it correctly?
It took months, but we got there in the end
You are getting desperate here You are imagining stuff and making up things I never said"Nope. That’ll be you. My work here is done | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And today that bandwagon is about blindly defending Islam irrespective of any evidence shown to their face. Only one person here is singling out a religion. Why is that? Because I showed you numerous evidences. Burning which religious book will result in you getting death threats? A question you have been trying hard to avoid. You are getting closer "I answered it a few posts up. You’re welcome | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And today that bandwagon is about blindly defending Islam irrespective of any evidence shown to their face. Only one person here is singling out a religion. Why is that? Because I showed you numerous evidences. Burning which religious book will result in you getting death threats? A question you have been trying hard to avoid. You are getting closer
I answered it a few posts up. You’re welcome "You made some hypothetical point about how some other Religious extremists "might" send you death threats. But that's not the reality, is it? Today, it's the Islamists who send people death threats for burning the book. If you ask a common man who is an atheist to burn each of the books, it's only one book he will be scared to burn. Pretending like it's not a problem with Islam is laughable | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Posting after fixing typos: This thread reminds me of something which an ex-Muslim told me - "Islam is the hill the left progressives of the West died on" After decades of calling out Christianity and Christians in order to fight for women's rights and rights of homosexuals, they somehow decided to support a religion that has even worse views on both the topics. And anyone who called out Islam for these issues was branded an "Islamophobe". It just proved that these progressives never cared about women's rights or gay rights in the first place. They just boarded the latest bandwagon which sounded cool. And today that bandwagon is about blindly defending Islam irrespective of any evidence shown to their face." It’s a consistent problem with Western liberal thinking. Anything foreign is “good” regardless of all the evidence. Anything Western is “bad”. Our ancestors having dragged us out of poverty and oppression, we have become overwhelmed by guilt and decided to commit cultural and economic suicide so we can feel better about ourselves. By the time we realise our mistake it will be too late. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Posting after fixing typos: This thread reminds me of something which an ex-Muslim told me - "Islam is the hill the left progressives of the West died on" After decades of calling out Christianity and Christians in order to fight for women's rights and rights of homosexuals, they somehow decided to support a religion that has even worse views on both the topics. And anyone who called out Islam for these issues was branded an "Islamophobe". It just proved that these progressives never cared about women's rights or gay rights in the first place. They just boarded the latest bandwagon which sounded cool. And today that bandwagon is about blindly defending Islam irrespective of any evidence shown to their face. It’s a consistent problem with Western liberal thinking. Anything foreign is “good” regardless of all the evidence. Anything Western is “bad”. Our ancestors having dragged us out of poverty and oppression, we have become overwhelmed by guilt and decided to commit cultural and economic suicide so we can feel better about ourselves. By the time we realise our mistake it will be too late." There is definitely a guilt/self-hatred aspect to it. That's the reason why they come up with such completely inconsistent views on all issues and try desperately hard to justify it with irrational arguments even when evidence says otherwise. Fwiw it's not just true with the West. I used to be a left progressive when I was younger and I was in India. There were protests against a Hindu temple not allowing women who are of menstrual age inside because the God has supposedly taken an oath of celibacy. I was mostly supportive of the protest then and made the mistake of commenting on an online group that, we need these kind of protests against many mosques in India too which didn't allow women. The amount of backlash I got on that thread opened my eyes to what these people really are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Asylum seekers are a hot topic at the moment with very few ideas on the table to legally solve the issues. If you’re against the boats, is your major issue how much this all costs? It is for me. Around 90% of cases are approved on first evaluation and half of the rejected people appeal successfully. So with 95% ish success rate after 18 months ish in a hotel at £145 per day per head etc…. Why don’t we just grant them all status and start getting them into work from day two? Saves a shit load of cash and has the potential that at least some will start paying into the system from day 2. " And how will you manage references and crb checks? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Asylum seekers are a hot topic at the moment with very few ideas on the table to legally solve the issues. If you’re against the boats, is your major issue how much this all costs? It is for me. Around 90% of cases are approved on first evaluation and half of the rejected people appeal successfully. So with 95% ish success rate after 18 months ish in a hotel at £145 per day per head etc…. Why don’t we just grant them all status and start getting them into work from day two? Saves a shit load of cash and has the potential that at least some will start paying into the system from day 2. And how will you manage references and crb checks?" You don’t need a CRB for every job. And no they won’t be able to provide references but an 18yo fresh out of college who’s never had a job can’t either. They have to be able to work or what is the alternative? A lifetime on benefits? That’s most people’s obligation to them being here in the first place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
If someone burns a bible, the police will do nothing. If they did feel compelled to act, they would only act because they were concerned about being seen as biased in favour of Muslims, not because they felt there was anything inherently wrong in the bible burning itself.
Aside from police action, if I burn a bible I face no social consequences.
If I burn a Koran, I will probably live in fear of reprisals for the rest of my life, and may have to go into hiding, like the Batley school teacher, who has now been forced into hiding for over three years."If you burned a copy of the Quran in an incinerator on your property, with no one watching, no recording of it happening, I very much doubt you would live in fear. If you did it in public, but without drawing attention to the book, again, doubtful you would be arrested or live in fear. If you were in public, making religious slurs against Islam and drawing attention to the book on fire being the Quran, then yes, probably arrest and possibly some threats. If you burned a bible, in an incinerator, at your property, no witnesses, no recordings - highly unlikely to live in fear. In public, no mention of the name of the book - slim chance of fear or arrest. In public, making religious slurs towards Christianity and highlighting that the book on fire is the Bible, probably arrested, possibly threats. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
If someone burns a bible, the police will do nothing. If they did feel compelled to act, they would only act because they were concerned about being seen as biased in favour of Muslims, not because they felt there was anything inherently wrong in the bible burning itself.
Aside from police action, if I burn a bible I face no social consequences.
If I burn a Koran, I will probably live in fear of reprisals for the rest of my life, and may have to go into hiding, like the Batley school teacher, who has now been forced into hiding for over three years.
If you burned a copy of the Quran in an incinerator on your property, with no one watching, no recording of it happening, I very much doubt you would live in fear.
If you did it in public, but without drawing attention to the book, again, doubtful you would be arrested or live in fear.
If you were in public, making religious slurs against Islam and drawing attention to the book on fire being the Quran, then yes, probably arrest and possibly some threats.
If you burned a bible, in an incinerator, at your property, no witnesses, no recordings - highly unlikely to live in fear.
In public, no mention of the name of the book - slim chance of fear or arrest.
In public, making religious slurs towards Christianity and highlighting that the book on fire is the Bible, probably arrested, possibly threats.
"People have burned the Bible and lot of horrible stuff has been said in public about Christianity and Jesus. None of that has resulted in death threats or arrests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aside from religion, people received death threats by rivals because they are supporting a football team so shall we say that if you support Team X, and all people supporting Y should be threatened as per your logic?" The question is if it is a trend? Today, anyone would support a football club without worrying about these death threats. But can you go out and burn the book or draw the forbidden picture without worrying about death threats? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
If someone burns a bible, the police will do nothing. If they did feel compelled to act, they would only act because they were concerned about being seen as biased in favour of Muslims, not because they felt there was anything inherently wrong in the bible burning itself.
Aside from police action, if I burn a bible I face no social consequences.
If I burn a Koran, I will probably live in fear of reprisals for the rest of my life, and may have to go into hiding, like the Batley school teacher, who has now been forced into hiding for over three years.
If you burned a copy of the Quran in an incinerator on your property, with no one watching, no recording of it happening, I very much doubt you would live in fear.
If you did it in public, but without drawing attention to the book, again, doubtful you would be arrested or live in fear.
If you were in public, making religious slurs against Islam and drawing attention to the book on fire being the Quran, then yes, probably arrest and possibly some threats.
If you burned a bible, in an incinerator, at your property, no witnesses, no recordings - highly unlikely to live in fear.
In public, no mention of the name of the book - slim chance of fear or arrest.
In public, making religious slurs towards Christianity and highlighting that the book on fire is the Bible, probably arrested, possibly threats.
"There is a very simple test here. Why don’t you go outside, set up a camera, and burn the Koran. No need to speak at all, no need for any slurs. Just put up a caption that you are burning the Koran, with your name, address, and telephone number. Then post the video on social media. There is zero risk to you at all from doing this, from what you are saying. A very simple experiment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is a good question, what defines trend? How many people burned a specific religion’s book overall and how many of them received a death threat. Another user explained above, we don’t have the data what has been done in private or in public even. If someone burned a book in public and receives no threat, is it worthy of news? Your sample set is limited but you are arriving at a general assumption of a wider audience." I am pretty sure I explained it above. Do you feel confident enough to go out and burn the Quran and go about with your life without worrying about your safety? You can do that without worrying about safety with every other religious book. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That explains nothing. There is no guarantee that you will receive a death threat if you do that as well as there is no guarantee you will NOT receive a death threat if you do the same with the Bible. " If it's not a guarantee why is a teacher still living in hiding for a picture drawn 4 years back? People who have burned the Bible thrown a LOT of insults at Jesus are just going on with their lives. A guy who burned the Quran in London was immediately attacked by two guys. A random food delivery passerby stopped and attack him. I have seen people making fun of Christianity in Leicester Square using loud speakers and speakers corner in Hyde Park. Nothing happens. Your argument is basically "prove that something will happen in the future". Nothing can be proven like that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Deport the lot. No possibility of asylum. The same way Australia have done. " Australia has refugees and asylum seekers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In fact, in order to apply for asylum in Australia you need to be outside of the country. But some people think that’s a stupid idea that can’t possibly work. " They allowed offshore processing from just one place, a place where they sent immigrants coming by boats. Very similar to the Rwanda plan that UK proposed but was stuck down by the courts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally I have no problem with anyone burning a Koran, a bible, showing the prophet Mohamed, or upset any other religion. Because all those sky-turnips are the same nonsense as each other. But at least I don’t single any one of them out as better or worse. Burn one religious book of each religion every day in public. Let me know which one gets you into trouble
We’ve already established that all would break incitement laws equally, do keep up.
Not really. People have burned Bible and haven't been arrested. Even if you aren't arrested, burning which of the books would result in you living in fear of your life?
People have burner the Koran and not been arrested too. Unless you’ve got evidence to prove otherwise?
Show me examples of people who have burned Quran and not been arrested. Also, you have ignored the question of death threats. Burn the Bible, Quran, Gita, Pali Canon, Guru Granth Sahib in public. Which of these acts would result in death threats? Most people in the country would know the answer to this question.
If someone burned a bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else in a small group of likeminded folk, what would happen?
Nothing.
If someone did the same on social media, In public, announcing it to the media? They’d be arrested for incitement.
Not a difficult concept to understand
If someone burns a bible, the police will do nothing. If they did feel compelled to act, they would only act because they were concerned about being seen as biased in favour of Muslims, not because they felt there was anything inherently wrong in the bible burning itself.
Aside from police action, if I burn a bible I face no social consequences.
If I burn a Koran, I will probably live in fear of reprisals for the rest of my life, and may have to go into hiding, like the Batley school teacher, who has now been forced into hiding for over three years.
If you burned a copy of the Quran in an incinerator on your property, with no one watching, no recording of it happening, I very much doubt you would live in fear.
If you did it in public, but without drawing attention to the book, again, doubtful you would be arrested or live in fear.
If you were in public, making religious slurs against Islam and drawing attention to the book on fire being the Quran, then yes, probably arrest and possibly some threats.
If you burned a bible, in an incinerator, at your property, no witnesses, no recordings - highly unlikely to live in fear.
In public, no mention of the name of the book - slim chance of fear or arrest.
In public, making religious slurs towards Christianity and highlighting that the book on fire is the Bible, probably arrested, possibly threats.
There is a very simple test here.
Why don’t you go outside, set up a camera, and burn the Koran.
No need to speak at all, no need for any slurs.
Just put up a caption that you are burning the Koran, with your name, address, and telephone number.
Then post the video on social media.
There is zero risk to you at all from doing this, from what you are saying.
A very simple experiment."Not even going to counter this, as it's not worthy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aside from religion, people received death threats by rivals because they are supporting a football team so shall we say that if you support Team X, and all people supporting Y should be threatened as per your logic? The question is if it is a trend? Today, anyone would support a football club without worrying about these death threats. But can you go out and burn the book or draw the forbidden picture without worrying about death threats?" Yell that to Paris Saint Germain. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aside from religion, people received death threats by rivals because they are supporting a football team so shall we say that if you support Team X, and all people supporting Y should be threatened as per your logic? The question is if it is a trend? Today, anyone would support a football club without worrying about these death threats. But can you go out and burn the book or draw the forbidden picture without worrying about death threats? Yell that to Paris Saint Germain." Did PSG supporters target people from other clubs and attack them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Asylum seekers are a hot topic at the moment with very few ideas on the table to legally solve the issues. If you’re against the boats, is your major issue how much this all costs? It is for me. Around 90% of cases are approved on first evaluation and half of the rejected people appeal successfully. So with 95% ish success rate after 18 months ish in a hotel at £145 per day per head etc…. Why don’t we just grant them all status and start getting them into work from day two? Saves a shit load of cash and has the potential that at least some will start paying into the system from day 2. " The costs are quite staggering so that has to be acknowledged. Processing can be speedier I guess but for those that are accepted they still need to be housed etc. That problem doesn't go away the moment they are accepted. Employment rate is low and generally earnings and therefore tax contributions are low, which helps explain why they are a net loss to the economy. Another problem I personally think annoys people is some of those that are rejected still can not be deported as they claim to be from a country that will persecute them so they get to stay anyway. Possibly one of the reasons they ditch any ID in the channel before landing in the UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aside from religion, people received death threats by rivals because they are supporting a football team so shall we say that if you support Team X, and all people supporting Y should be threatened as per your logic?" "The question is if it is a trend? Today, anyone would support a football club without worrying about these death threats. But can you go out and burn the book or draw the forbidden picture without worrying about death threats?" False comparison. There are plenty of people supporting other religions in the UK, and they get no death threats from Islamists. The death threats only occur when people deliberately incite it by burning the holy book. Try going to a football stadium on match day and burning the scarf of that team while shouting about how all their supporters are paedophiles. Tell me then that football supporters don't issue death threats. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Another problem I personally think annoys people is some of those that are rejected still can not be deported as they claim to be from a country that will persecute them so they get to stay anyway." Being from a country where you face persecution is literally the sole qualification for an asylum seeker. There are no other grounds for claiming asylum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aside from religion, people received death threats by rivals because they are supporting a football team so shall we say that if you support Team X, and all people supporting Y should be threatened as per your logic? The question is if it is a trend? Today, anyone would support a football club without worrying about these death threats. But can you go out and burn the book or draw the forbidden picture without worrying about death threats? False comparison. There are plenty of people supporting other religions in the UK, and they get no death threats from Islamists. The death threats only occur when people deliberately incite it by burning the holy book. Try going to a football stadium on match day and burning the scarf of that team while shouting about how all their supporters are paedophiles. Tell me then that football supporters don't issue death threats." False comparison. Calling someone a Pedo is not the same as burning a book. About scarves, there is literally a video of Newcastle fan taking an arsenal scarf, pulling his pants down and wiping with it As an Arsenal fan, I found it quite funny. There are rare instances when emotions get better of people and they fight each other. It rarely goes on to become a long term threat.
Salman Rushdie was living in hiding for decades after he wrote the Satanic Verses book. And still got stabbed in the US. That book's Japanese translator got killed, Norwegian translator got shot. The hotel where its Turkish translator stayed was burned down. Though he escaped, many others were killed. All over writing a book. It's ridiculous to compare Islamic extremism with football fights. No one is living in hiding for years over a football fight.
Burning a book is not inciting violence. The morons who get violent over a book do it out of their own will. They have a choice to not get violent. They were not forced. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Another problem I personally think annoys people is some of those that are rejected still can not be deported as they claim to be from a country that will persecute them so they get to stay anyway. Being from a country where you face persecution is literally the sole qualification for an asylum seeker. There are no other grounds for claiming asylum." Not strictly true. War is a valid reason for claiming asylum, though it *may* not be considered acceptable by the host nation. Some people will qualify for humanitarian protection too, if not eligible for refugee status. Basically - maybe, maybe not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Another problem I personally think annoys people is some of those that are rejected still can not be deported as they claim to be from a country that will persecute them so they get to stay anyway." "Being from a country where you face persecution is literally the sole qualification for an asylum seeker. There are no other grounds for claiming asylum." "Not strictly true. War is a valid reason for claiming asylum, though it *may* not be considered acceptable by the host nation. Some people will qualify for humanitarian protection too, if not eligible for refugee status. Basically - maybe, maybe not." There is nothing in the 1951 Convention that mentions war in any way (not now that they've taken out the clause that used to limit it to those displaced before WWII). War might be a reason for humanitarian aid, but that's nothing to do with claiming asylum. This is where the word "refugee" gets messy. The 1951 Convention defines a refugee as someone with "a well-founded fear of persecution". The normal use of "refugee" includes those fleeing from other problems, so it's easy to see why people get mixed up on this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Burning a book is not inciting violence. The morons who get violent over a book do it out of their own will. They have a choice to not get violent. They were not forced." Burning a book in itself does not incite violence, but if someone had the entire Harry Potter collection and set it alight, whilst saying that JK Rowling is a transphobe and all TERFS are evil, barren and deserve to die, all this outside a TERF meeting, then I'm pretty sure there would be a volatile reaction. Are you familiar with the German Students of the mid 1930s, having bonfires of books written by left wing writers, Jewish writers, anyone that didn't fit the Hitler viewpoint? Following on from that, not only Jews being persecuted, but gypsies and travellers, homosexuals (and those that we recognise now as LGBTQ+), anyone group that did not fit with the Aryan race. Hitler claimed he was German Christian (Oops! Nuances of Henry VIII creating the Protestant Church and being cut off from Roman Catholicism by the Pope) Both those situations ended well, didn't they? No-one was hurt? History is there to teach us a better way. Every person has agency. They can choose to burn a book IN ORDER TO INCITE violence, or not. The people who react to the burning book can choose to react within the law or outside of it. Both the person wanting to incite violence by burning a book and those who choose to act outside the law do so knowing there will be legal consequences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Burning a book is not inciting violence. The morons who get violent over a book do it out of their own will. They have a choice to not get violent. They were not forced. Burning a book in itself does not incite violence, but if someone had the entire Harry Potter collection and set it alight, whilst saying that JK Rowling is a transphobe and all TERFS are evil, barren and deserve to die, all this outside a TERF meeting, then I'm pretty sure there would be a volatile reaction. " Burning Harry Potter books while saying JK Rowling is a transphobe/TERF is totally fine. But saying that they deserve to die is basically advocating for violence. The guy who burned Quran didn't advocate for violence. Not sure why you try mixing both. " Are you familiar with the German Students of the mid 1930s, having bonfires of books written by left wing writers, Jewish writers, anyone that didn't fit the Hitler viewpoint? Following on from that, not only Jews being persecuted, but gypsies and travellers, homosexuals (and those that we recognise now as LGBTQ+), anyone group that did not fit with the Aryan race. " Lol. This is like saying Hitler was a painter and so, we must ban painting. There are numerous cases of books being burned which didn't really lead to Nazism. Religions are just like any other ideologies. People have every right to mock, ridicule or insult them. If it's fine to burn the communist _anifesto or the wealth of the nations, it should be fine to burn this book too. Don't use Nazism as an excuse to defend blasphemy laws. The actual far right extremists in this situation are the religious nutters who would use violence just because a book was burnt. No one else. I don't know why people are defending these far right extremists. " Every person has agency. They can choose to burn a book IN ORDER TO INCITE violence, or not. " This is classic victim blaming, akin to saying women shouldn't wear short skirts because it would incite men to commit sexual assault. Women have the right to wear whatever they want. People have the right to burn books they own. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is classic victim blaming, akin to saying women shouldn't wear short skirts because it would incite men to commit sexual assault. Women have the right to wear whatever they want. " Absolutely not! Victim blaming is making the victim responsible for the crime. Someone choosing to burn a book in an inflammatory manner (pun intended) is acting of their own agency and needs to face the consequences of those actions. Anyone who retaliates faces consequences for theirs. "People have the right to burn books they own. " Yes, they do. However, if they own a book that they know has particular meaning to another group of people and treats that book disrespectfully, in public, whilst saying things of a prejudiced nature towards that group of people, they will face the consequences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes, they do. However, if they own a book that they know has particular meaning to another group of people and treats that book disrespectfully, in public, whilst saying things of a prejudiced nature towards that group of people, they will face the consequences. " In a nutshell, this is it. If someone attacks me for deliberately saying provocative and disrespectful things, they’re committing a crime. But if I’m going out of my way to say provocative and disrespectful things, I should probably consider why I’m doing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t get why some people think that these people are fleeing civil war and torture. Are you really that gullible? " Exactly, large numbers of successful asylum seekers actually go back to there country of origin on holiday or to visit family members.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is classic victim blaming, akin to saying women shouldn't wear short skirts because it would incite men to commit sexual assault. Women have the right to wear whatever they want. Absolutely not! Victim blaming is making the victim responsible for the crime. Someone choosing to burn a book in an inflammatory manner (pun intended) is acting of their own agency and needs to face the consequences of those actions. " That's exactly what men committing violence against women say - Those women asked for it. Is it wrong for someone to burn communist _anifesto in public? If that's not wrong, why is burning a religious book a crime? " Yes, they do. However, if they own a book that they know has particular meaning to another group of people and treats that book disrespectfully, in public, whilst saying things of a prejudiced nature towards that group of people, they will face the consequences. " Should we ban stand up comedians from making fun of religion? I have seen horrible shit being spoken in loud speakers about Christianity. Should we arrest them all and throw them in prisons? What you are asking for is blasphemy laws. At least be honest about it instead of beating around the bush | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah yes! UK doesn't need any more doctors or engineers either does it eh? How many arriving by small boat are doctors and engineers? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes, they do. However, if they own a book that they know has particular meaning to another group of people and treats that book disrespectfully, in public, whilst saying things of a prejudiced nature towards that group of people, they will face the consequences. In a nutshell, this is it. If someone attacks me for deliberately saying provocative and disrespectful things, they’re committing a crime. But if I’m going out of my way to say provocative and disrespectful things, I should probably consider why I’m doing it. " No. No. No. If one goes out of their way to be disrespectful and provocative (I see your semantics have shifted for this one) towards someone (or a group of people) with a protected characteristic, one is likely to face consequences. Legal ones included. Also, intelligence is collected based on ones clear prejudices. That is what I mean by agency. Every individual can choose what to do in a situation, but all have consequences - some more life changing than others. In your example previously about SA, it's a woman's agency to wear what she wants. She's not inviting SA. She's not inviting or inciting anything. She's wearing clothes that make her feel good. (you should see the art work around what women have actually been wearing at the time of SA - yes, it's been made onto an art exhibition. No, it's not mini skirts and low cut tops.) The man's agency is to act appropriately - if he doesn't, he faces the consequences. Ideally through the justice system, but you can look at the figures of reported SA, those that reach the threshold for CPS to prosecute and then the ones that get to court and those outcomes. More often, he faces limited consequences. His SA victim? Lifelong. Please don't mistake one person's deliberate actions to incite a reaction from a targeted group of people in the same way as a very personal, intimate attack on an individual by someone who 'couldn't help it', they were 'd*unk', they were 'entitled', it was their partner - it can't be grape..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes, they do. However, if they own a book that they know has particular meaning to another group of people and treats that book disrespectfully, in public, whilst saying things of a prejudiced nature towards that group of people, they will face the consequences. In a nutshell, this is it. If someone attacks me for deliberately saying provocative and disrespectful things, they’re committing a crime. But if I’m going out of my way to say provocative and disrespectful things, I should probably consider why I’m doing it. No. No. No. If one goes out of their way to be disrespectful and provocative (I see your semantics have shifted for this one) towards someone (or a group of people) with a protected characteristic, one is likely to face consequences. Legal ones included. Also, intelligence is collected based on ones clear prejudices. That is what I mean by agency. Every individual can choose what to do in a situation, but all have consequences - some more life changing than others. In your example previously about SA, it's a woman's agency to wear what she wants. She's not inviting SA. She's not inviting or inciting anything. She's wearing clothes that make her feel good. (you should see the art work around what women have actually been wearing at the time of SA - yes, it's been made onto an art exhibition. No, it's not mini skirts and low cut tops.) The man's agency is to act appropriately - if he doesn't, he faces the consequences. Ideally through the justice system, but you can look at the figures of reported SA, those that reach the threshold for CPS to prosecute and then the ones that get to court and those outcomes. More often, he faces limited consequences. His SA victim? Lifelong. Please don't mistake one person's deliberate actions to incite a reaction from a targeted group of people in the same way as a very personal, intimate attack on an individual by someone who 'couldn't help it', they were 'd*unk', they were 'entitled', it was their partner - it can't be grape..... " You’re conflating two different posters on here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes, they do. However, if they own a book that they know has particular meaning to another group of people and treats that book disrespectfully, in public, whilst saying things of a prejudiced nature towards that group of people, they will face the consequences. In a nutshell, this is it. If someone attacks me for deliberately saying provocative and disrespectful things, they’re committing a crime. But if I’m going out of my way to say provocative and disrespectful things, I should probably consider why I’m doing it. No. No. No. If one goes out of their way to be disrespectful and provocative (I see your semantics have shifted for this one) towards someone (or a group of people) with a protected characteristic, one is likely to face consequences. Legal ones included. Also, intelligence is collected based on ones clear prejudices. That is what I mean by agency. Every individual can choose what to do in a situation, but all have consequences - some more life changing than others. In your example previously about SA, it's a woman's agency to wear what she wants. She's not inviting SA. She's not inviting or inciting anything. She's wearing clothes that make her feel good. (you should see the art work around what women have actually been wearing at the time of SA - yes, it's been made onto an art exhibition. No, it's not mini skirts and low cut tops.) The man's agency is to act appropriately - if he doesn't, he faces the consequences. Ideally through the justice system, but you can look at the figures of reported SA, those that reach the threshold for CPS to prosecute and then the ones that get to court and those outcomes. More often, he faces limited consequences. His SA victim? Lifelong. Please don't mistake one person's deliberate actions to incite a reaction from a targeted group of people in the same way as a very personal, intimate attack on an individual by someone who 'couldn't help it', they were 'd*unk', they were 'entitled', it was their partner - it can't be grape..... You’re conflating two different posters on here. " You are absolutely correct and apologies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If one goes out of their way to be disrespectful and provocative (I see your semantics have shifted for this one) towards someone (or a group of people) with a protected characteristic, one is likely to face consequences. Legal ones included. Also, intelligence is collected based on ones clear prejudices. " I know one will face legal consequences. We aren't arguing if the law is applied correctly or not. We are arguing if these blasphemy laws should exist in the first place. Going back to your example, a woman wearing such clothes is considered provocative and disrespectful in many of the misogynistic societies. A religion is an ideology at the end of the day. If a bunch of far right extremists can't handle mockery of it, it's their problem. We as a society shouldn't succumb to the will of these far right extremists. " In your example previously about SA, it's a woman's agency to wear what she wants. She's not inviting SA. She's not inviting or inciting anything. " Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. " The man's agency is to act appropriately - if he doesn't, he faces the consequences. Ideally through the justice system, but you can look at the figures of reported SA, those that reach the threshold for CPS to prosecute and then the ones that get to court and those outcomes. More often, he faces limited consequences. His SA victim? Lifelong. " The guy got physically attacked for burning the book. The effect of what he faced is also life long. " Please don't mistake one person's deliberate actions to incite a reaction from a targeted group of people in the same way as a very personal, intimate attack on an individual by someone who 'couldn't help it', they were 'd*unk', they were 'entitled', it was their partner - it can't be grape..... " Should we throw Ricky Gervais in prison for making the Two Popes joke in the Golden Globes awards presentation? What he said was disrespectful too. You are just doing mental gymnastics to defend blasphemy laws. You are blaming victims of far right extremism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. " In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? " I never defended verbally abusing an individual. I have seen you and the other poster repeatedly making these strawman arguments. To make it clear, it's ok to say anything about an ideology. It's not ok to be abusive towards individuals. If burning communist _anifesto and saying communism is evil should be legal, doing the same with Islam should also be legal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? I never defended verbally abusing an individual. I have seen you and the other poster repeatedly making these strawman arguments. To make it clear, it's ok to say anything about an ideology. It's not ok to be abusive towards individuals. If burning communist _anifesto and saying communism is evil should be legal, doing the same with Islam should also be legal." I said a group of fans, not an individual. Their ideology, their identity is their football team. Fancy answering my question? Would you taunt them? Why not? Would you think someone was an idiot for taunting them when outnumbered? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? " Burning a book isn’t provocative. The fact is that the state should have immediately stamped out any intimidation by Islamic extremists of people questioning or mocking their religion. It should have been made clear that in the UK people are free to practise whatever religion they like, and others are free to mock it. It failed to do so out of fear and because it wished to pander to the Muslim vote, just as Labour is again with its proposed blasphemy laws. So now we all live in a state of fear and know that there is an unwritten code that nobody dares mock or question Islam. If we do, we know there is a price to be paid, either through direct intimidation and violence (see the Batley teacher), or via the puppet blasphemy police who are too petrified themselves, and have been too confused by all their DEI brainwashing, to do anything else. Sadly terrorism works. It worked for the IRA and it has worked for the Islamic terrorists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? Burning a book isn’t provocative. " That’s subjective, is it not? When the Nazis burned books by Jewish authors, was that provocative? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? I never defended verbally abusing an individual. I have seen you and the other poster repeatedly making these strawman arguments. To make it clear, it's ok to say anything about an ideology. It's not ok to be abusive towards individuals. If burning communist _anifesto and saying communism is evil should be legal, doing the same with Islam should also be legal. I said a group of fans, not an individual. Their ideology, their identity is their football team. Fancy answering my question? Would you taunt them? Why not? Would you think someone was an idiot for taunting them when outnumbered? " It's really not that hard to understand. It's should be legally ok to mock their club. If I am attacked for mocking their club, they are breaking the law. They should be arrested. Not me. Same with Islam. It's legally not ok to be abusive to the group of people and calling them names. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" just as Labour is again with its proposed blasphemy laws. " We’re just out here telling straight lies now, are we? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? I never defended verbally abusing an individual. I have seen you and the other poster repeatedly making these strawman arguments. To make it clear, it's ok to say anything about an ideology. It's not ok to be abusive towards individuals. If burning communist _anifesto and saying communism is evil should be legal, doing the same with Islam should also be legal. I said a group of fans, not an individual. Their ideology, their identity is their football team. Fancy answering my question? Would you taunt them? Why not? Would you think someone was an idiot for taunting them when outnumbered? It's really not that hard to understand. It's should be legally ok to mock their club. If I am attacked for mocking their club, they are breaking the law. They should be arrested. Not me. Same with Islam. It's legally not ok to be abusive to the group of people and calling them names." I asked you if you’d do it - not whether you should be arrested for it. You accuse me of moving the goalposts but want to answer different questions to the one posed. Would you taunt a group of rival d*unk football fans, when outnumbered? If not, why not? I wouldn’t. Because I’d get my head kicked in. Would you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? Burning a book isn’t provocative. That’s subjective, is it not? When the Nazis burned books by Jewish authors, was that provocative? " No it isn’t subjective. Burning books isn’t provocative. I may prefer it that books aren’t burned. But that is not that same as being provoked. It has become a common perspective that certain things “provoke” others, but that isn’t actually the case. The people who argue it would just prefer that the things didn’t happen, so they create some facile overreaction to try to control others’ behaviour. I may prefer that people don’t wear yellow as I find it distasteful. Does that mean that it is provocative for people to keep wearing yellow? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? Burning a book isn’t provocative. That’s subjective, is it not? When the Nazis burned books by Jewish authors, was that provocative? No it isn’t subjective. Burning books isn’t provocative. " You could not be more wrong. Seriously. It’s an act of censorship and destruction of knowledge, an attack on learning. Read Fahrenheit 451. Please. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? I never defended verbally abusing an individual. I have seen you and the other poster repeatedly making these strawman arguments. To make it clear, it's ok to say anything about an ideology. It's not ok to be abusive towards individuals. If burning communist _anifesto and saying communism is evil should be legal, doing the same with Islam should also be legal. I said a group of fans, not an individual. Their ideology, their identity is their football team. Fancy answering my question? Would you taunt them? Why not? Would you think someone was an idiot for taunting them when outnumbered? It's really not that hard to understand. It's should be legally ok to mock their club. If I am attacked for mocking their club, they are breaking the law. They should be arrested. Not me. Same with Islam. It's legally not ok to be abusive to the group of people and calling them names. I asked you if you’d do it - not whether you should be arrested for it. You accuse me of moving the goalposts but want to answer different questions to the one posed. Would you taunt a group of rival d*unk football fans, when outnumbered? If not, why not? I wouldn’t. Because I’d get my head kicked in. Would you? " You are getting into the victim blaming Territory now. It's like asking a woman "will you walk d*unk alone towards those bunch of d*unk men at night in an alley?" Will you say it's the mistake of the woman for doing so? Let's say I taunted their club and got beaten up. Do you think I should be charged for "being provocative"? Remember I didn't abuse the individuals I just shouted that the club is a shitty club. Does it mean I should get arrested for that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? I never defended verbally abusing an individual. I have seen you and the other poster repeatedly making these strawman arguments. To make it clear, it's ok to say anything about an ideology. It's not ok to be abusive towards individuals. If burning communist _anifesto and saying communism is evil should be legal, doing the same with Islam should also be legal. I said a group of fans, not an individual. Their ideology, their identity is their football team. Fancy answering my question? Would you taunt them? Why not? Would you think someone was an idiot for taunting them when outnumbered? It's really not that hard to understand. It's should be legally ok to mock their club. If I am attacked for mocking their club, they are breaking the law. They should be arrested. Not me. Same with Islam. It's legally not ok to be abusive to the group of people and calling them names. I asked you if you’d do it - not whether you should be arrested for it. You accuse me of moving the goalposts but want to answer different questions to the one posed. Would you taunt a group of rival d*unk football fans, when outnumbered? If not, why not? I wouldn’t. Because I’d get my head kicked in. Would you? You are getting into the victim blaming Territory now. It's like asking a woman "will you walk d*unk alone towards those bunch of d*unk men at night in an alley?" Will you say it's the mistake of the woman for doing so? Let's say I taunted their club and got beaten up. Do you think I should be charged for "being provocative"? Remember I didn't abuse the individuals I just shouted that the club is a shitty club. Does it mean I should get arrested for that? " I didn’t say anything about being arrested, did I? They’re the ones committing an offence, but you’re the one provoking it. Presumably that’s why you wouldn’t do it, right? Because it’s not worth getting your head kicked in by a bunch of thugs? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If one goes out of their way to be disrespectful and provocative (I see your semantics have shifted for this one) towards someone (or a group of people) with a protected characteristic, one is likely to face consequences. Legal ones included. Also, intelligence is collected based on ones clear prejudices. I know one will face legal consequences. We aren't arguing if the law is applied correctly or not. We are arguing if these blasphemy laws should exist in the first place. Going back to your example, a woman wearing such clothes is considered provocative and disrespectful in many of the misogynistic societies. A religion is an ideology at the end of the day. If a bunch of far right extremists can't handle mockery of it, it's their problem. We as a society shouldn't succumb to the will of these far right extremists. In your example previously about SA, it's a woman's agency to wear what she wants. She's not inviting SA. She's not inviting or inciting anything. Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. The man's agency is to act appropriately - if he doesn't, he faces the consequences. Ideally through the justice system, but you can look at the figures of reported SA, those that reach the threshold for CPS to prosecute and then the ones that get to court and those outcomes. More often, he faces limited consequences. His SA victim? Lifelong. The guy got physically attacked for burning the book. The effect of what he faced is also life long. Please don't mistake one person's deliberate actions to incite a reaction from a targeted group of people in the same way as a very personal, intimate attack on an individual by someone who 'couldn't help it', they were 'd*unk', they were 'entitled', it was their partner - it can't be grape..... Should we throw Ricky Gervais in prison for making the Two Popes joke in the Golden Globes awards presentation? What he said was disrespectful too. You are just doing mental gymnastics to defend blasphemy laws. You are blaming victims of far right extremism." Wow! You can really spin the narrative. Was Ricky Gervaise inciting violence? No. Is burning a religious tome in a public place, in front of an establishment that adheres to that religion, on top of which, speaking ill of that religion or culture is likely to incite violence? Yes it is. He had agency. He was a refugee There are no blasphemy laws. We have protected characteristics by law - race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. In the Equality Act 2010 there are four more, which relate more to employment. The UK is not a patriarchal society? You subscribe to that? There is no gender equality in the UK. From the press: Hamit Coskun was accused of shouting "f*** Islam" and "Islam is religion of terrorism" as he held up a burning copy of the holy Islamic text in Knightsbridge, London, in February. Oh! And he's an asylum seeker. I have nothing more to say, because I was brought up that if you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And that’s the point - it’s legal to burn a bible, a Koran, all sorts of stuff. But it IS an act of provocation. Denying that is like denying the colour of the sky. Book burning is MEANT to be provocative. It’s MEANT to get a reaction. Don’t cry when it gets a reaction. " You are back to your mental gymnastics again. If it's legal, why do people get arrested repeatedly for burning Quran? Maybe Charles Darwin should be arrested for provoking the Christians. The self-proclaimed "progressives" defending blasphemy laws is so funny to watch 🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And that’s the point - it’s legal to burn a bible, a Koran, all sorts of stuff. But it IS an act of provocation. Denying that is like denying the colour of the sky. Book burning is MEANT to be provocative. It’s MEANT to get a reaction. Don’t cry when it gets a reaction. You are back to your mental gymnastics again. If it's legal, why do people get arrested repeatedly for burning Quran? Maybe Charles Darwin should be arrested for provoking the Christians. The self-proclaimed "progressives" defending blasphemy laws is so funny to watch 🤣" Have I defended anyone being arrested for burning the Koran? No i haven’t . Have I suggested that burning the Koran (or any text) is a stupid, provocative idea that will always gain a response (and not a good one). Yes I have - and that’s why people have been arrested - it’s incitement that is the charge, not book burning. If you stood outside a mosque shouting obscenities about Islam, you’d receive the same charge with no book burning. If you did the equivalent at Sunday Mass, you’d be changed with the same. Surely you can understand that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Similarly, a guy burning Quran isn't inviting violence. There is no reason why burning a book should result in physical violence. In the same way that any provocative act shouldn’t result in violence. But sometimes they do. Would you verbally abuse a load of d*unk rival football fans if you were alone and outnumbered? You’d think someone pretty stupid for doing so, right? I never defended verbally abusing an individual. I have seen you and the other poster repeatedly making these strawman arguments. To make it clear, it's ok to say anything about an ideology. It's not ok to be abusive towards individuals. If burning communist _anifesto and saying communism is evil should be legal, doing the same with Islam should also be legal. I said a group of fans, not an individual. Their ideology, their identity is their football team. Fancy answering my question? Would you taunt them? Why not? Would you think someone was an idiot for taunting them when outnumbered? It's really not that hard to understand. It's should be legally ok to mock their club. If I am attacked for mocking their club, they are breaking the law. They should be arrested. Not me. Same with Islam. It's legally not ok to be abusive to the group of people and calling them names. I asked you if you’d do it - not whether you should be arrested for it. You accuse me of moving the goalposts but want to answer different questions to the one posed. Would you taunt a group of rival d*unk football fans, when outnumbered? If not, why not? I wouldn’t. Because I’d get my head kicked in. Would you? You are getting into the victim blaming Territory now. It's like asking a woman "will you walk d*unk alone towards those bunch of d*unk men at night in an alley?" Will you say it's the mistake of the woman for doing so? Let's say I taunted their club and got beaten up. Do you think I should be charged for "being provocative"? Remember I didn't abuse the individuals I just shouted that the club is a shitty club. Does it mean I should get arrested for that? " You have a strange understanding of victim blaming. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wow! You can really spin the narrative. Was Ricky Gervaise inciting violence? " If he did the same joke about the Prophet being a pedo, it would be "inciting violence", wouldn't it? This is the problem with your argument. Whether something results in violence or not depends on others, not the person who burnt a book or said a joke. " Is burning a religious tome in a public place, in front of an establishment that adheres to that religion, on top of which, speaking ill of that religion or culture is likely to incite violence? Yes it is. He had agency. He was a refugee " So according to you, doing pride parade in front of Churches and saying that Christianity is homophobic should be illegal? Point noted. " There are no blasphemy laws. We have protected characteristics by law - race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. " If making mockery of religion is illegal, it is blasphemy laws. You are doing mental gymnastics with the whole "provocative" thing to make it sound like it's not. But unfortunately, it is blasphemy law and you are defending far right extremism. " Hamit Coskun was accused of shouting "f*** Islam" and "Islam is religion of terrorism" as he held up a burning copy of the holy Islamic text in Knightsbridge, London, in February. " If doing the same with the communist _anifesto and saying fuck communism is legal, this should be legal too. " I have nothing more to say, because I was brought up that if you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all. " But you haven't said anything good 🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
