On May 25 2017 06:53 TheDwf wrote:
Please tell me his post was ironic.
Please tell me his post was ironic.
obv. it was, I am tired talking with kwark -.-
Forum Index > General Forum |
sharkie
Austria18009 Posts
On May 25 2017 06:53 TheDwf wrote: Please tell me his post was ironic. obv. it was, I am tired talking with kwark -.- | ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 25 2017 06:54 sharkie wrote: obv. it was, I am tired talking with kwark -.- Proud of myself for not getting baited | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
A Muslim community worker who knew the Manchester bomber said they warned officials that he appeared to support terrorism. The unnamed worker said they knew the bomber Salman Abedi when he was at college, and had expressed their concern to officers after he said he thought ‘being a suicide bomber was OK’. He also apparently made comments ‘supporting terrorism’, which were also reported. The calls were made five years ago after Abedi left school, they told the BBC. Salman Abedi detonated a nail bomb near the entrance of Manchester Arena on Monday night, as up to 21,000 fans were leaving a sold-out Ariana Grande concert. At least 22 people have died, and another 119 are injured – 20 of them critically. It was the deadliest terrorist attack to hit the UK since the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005. Salman Abedi’s brother Ismail was arrested by UK counter-terror police on Tuesday after a series of raids. Source | ||
evilfatsh1t
Australia8526 Posts
On May 25 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 05:37 D_lux wrote: On May 25 2017 04:34 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 04:01 D_lux wrote: No value worths as much as keeping innocent people from dieing. Spoken like a true coward. So beeing concerned about civilian life is now coward? You are really a psychopath if you think that it is okay if innocent people die so as long as you can feel proud about your supposed values. You are also being very generous when dismissing other peoples' lifes. It is really sad... Given your inability with English I'm going to assume you're not British and therefore wouldn't understand. That's okay. Most nations don't have our history, nor our national identity, nor our values. That's why we continue to serve as an inspiration to the rest of you. well this is a bit dumb. i have nothing against the english but to assume that england is an inspiration to the rest of the world is laughable. no country is an inspiration to anyone. you can have moments of inspiration in select scenarios but to generalise it like so is just wishful thinking. i applaud your love of your own country though | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
On May 25 2017 10:54 evilfatsh1t wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 05:42 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 05:37 D_lux wrote: On May 25 2017 04:34 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 04:01 D_lux wrote: No value worths as much as keeping innocent people from dieing. Spoken like a true coward. So beeing concerned about civilian life is now coward? You are really a psychopath if you think that it is okay if innocent people die so as long as you can feel proud about your supposed values. You are also being very generous when dismissing other peoples' lifes. It is really sad... Given your inability with English I'm going to assume you're not British and therefore wouldn't understand. That's okay. Most nations don't have our history, nor our national identity, nor our values. That's why we continue to serve as an inspiration to the rest of you. well this is a bit dumb. i have nothing against the english but to assume that england is an inspiration to the rest of the world is laughable. no country is an inspiration to anyone. you can have moments of inspiration in select scenarios but to generalise it like so is just wishful thinking. i applaud your love of your own country though Typical Kwark though, he got a couple of things wrong there. The "country united" and whatnot is bullshit too. It was bad before this attack (evidently, i mean it's borderline delusional to state otherwise) and this didn't help. "Yeah, our racist xenophobic old farts changed their mind completely now after they blew up dozens of kids". Right. More importantly, this is on the government. This guy should've been under surveillance, there was enough circumstantial evidence to at least warrant surveillance/background checks. He visited a region where a british terrorist recruiter/leader is known to be - and his neighbours could've told the police what they did now afterwards. A religious nutjob. With that knowledge, if you ignore those signs, and kids get blown up, it's on you. I do understand and accept that there's bombings that we can't prevent, but this isn't one of them. This has nothing to do with values if innocent people get killed in an attack that could've been prevented if the offices would've done their job more thoroughly. And you know why that's not just sad, but tragic? That's exactly the same background as the Berlins Christmas Market attack. A possible extremist didn't get observed even though there was a legal premise for it, then shit happened. Now. Could've surveillance prevented the christmas market attack? Most likely not, i don't think so - mainly because that didn't need any long term preparation. Building a sophisticated (in fact, almost impressive) nailbomb does. Did i mention that the british terrorist guy in lybia also is known to be an expert bomb maker? Fact of the matter is, you can't prevent all attacks. Those who can't be prevented should not die in vain. Those which could've been prevented but didn't because of fuck ups (or morons who think it'll be totally unacceptable to observe people who are potentially dangerous) should be called out - i personally would NOT want my kid (that i don't have, but still) die in an attack that could've easily prevented. | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. | ||
KwarK
United States40785 Posts
On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 25 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. That doesn't matter. The ideology penetrated, whether it's first generation, second generation, third generation is not as relevant. If he decided to not blow himself up and have kids, guess what? They aren't going to be raised with UK values. | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 25 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. What is irrational about fearing the acceptance of immigrants/refugees with contrasting values, coming from a relatively lawless place where ISIS is rampant and it is difficult to assess the motivations of each individual? You see xenophobia, I see common sense. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 25 2017 12:30 biology]major wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. That doesn't matter. The ideology penetrated, whether it's first generation, second generation, third generation is not as relevant. If he decided to not blow himself up and have kids, guess what? They aren't going to be raised with UK values. Some people are just born bad because of where their families are from, we got it. Their barbaric culture is flawed cannot conform with western values. It is the burden of the western civilizations to uplift them and make them civil. On May 25 2017 12:32 biology]major wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. What is irrational about fearing the acceptance of immigrants/refugees with contrasting values, coming from a relatively lawless place where ISIS is rampant and it is difficult to assess the motivations of each individual? You see xenophobia, I see common sense. If you are a coward, it makes perfect sense. I am not burdened with that problem. | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 25 2017 12:35 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 12:30 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. That doesn't matter. The ideology penetrated, whether it's first generation, second generation, third generation is not as relevant. If he decided to not blow himself up and have kids, guess what? They aren't going to be raised with UK values. Some people are just born bad because of where their families are from, we got it. Their barbaric culture is flawed cannot conform with western values. It is the burden of the western civilizations to uplift them and make them civil. Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 12:32 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. What is irrational about fearing the acceptance of immigrants/refugees with contrasting values, coming from a relatively lawless place where ISIS is rampant and it is difficult to assess the motivations of each individual? You see xenophobia, I see common sense. If you are a coward, it makes perfect sense. I am not burdened with that problem. It's just risk assessment, which you fail to aknowledge by moralizing with "bravery" "tolerance" etc. There are good libyan families who want to escape terror and assimilate to western values. The question is, is it worth accepting them and taking on the risk of bringing in those who wish to harm us? A cigarrete smoker can smoke a pack a day for life and go without ever getting any lung disease. That dosen't make it smart, or brave. | ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11358 Posts
On May 25 2017 12:39 biology]major wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 12:35 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:30 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. That doesn't matter. The ideology penetrated, whether it's first generation, second generation, third generation is not as relevant. If he decided to not blow himself up and have kids, guess what? They aren't going to be raised with UK values. Some people are just born bad because of where their families are from, we got it. Their barbaric culture is flawed cannot conform with western values. It is the burden of the western civilizations to uplift them and make them civil. On May 25 2017 12:32 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. What is irrational about fearing the acceptance of immigrants/refugees with contrasting values, coming from a relatively lawless place where ISIS is rampant and it is difficult to assess the motivations of each individual? You see xenophobia, I see common sense. If you are a coward, it makes perfect sense. I am not burdened with that problem. It's just risk assessment, which you fail to aknowledge by moralizing with "bravery" "tolerance" etc. There are good libyan families who want to escape terror and assimilate to western values. The question is, is it worth accepting them and taking on the risk of bringing in those who wish to harm us? A cigarrete smoker can smoke a pack a day for life and go without ever getting any lung disease. That dosen't make it smart, or brave. Like I said, here's my far right proposal: I've done some risk assessment and noticed that a lot of criminals and terrorists are young males, so I'm offering that we jail young males from 17 to say 28 or something (we can discuss the ages), and as such we make our society way safer by getting rid of the most problematic population. I mean sure some of these would never have done any crimes but does that matter in the face of all of this security? | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 25 2017 12:39 biology]major wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 12:35 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:30 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. That doesn't matter. The ideology penetrated, whether it's first generation, second generation, third generation is not as relevant. If he decided to not blow himself up and have kids, guess what? They aren't going to be raised with UK values. Some people are just born bad because of where their families are from, we got it. Their barbaric culture is flawed cannot conform with western values. It is the burden of the western civilizations to uplift them and make them civil. On May 25 2017 12:32 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. What is irrational about fearing the acceptance of immigrants/refugees with contrasting values, coming from a relatively lawless place where ISIS is rampant and it is difficult to assess the motivations of each individual? You see xenophobia, I see common sense. If you are a coward, it makes perfect sense. I am not burdened with that problem. It's just risk assessment, which you fail to aknowledge by moralizing with "bravery" "tolerance" etc. There are good libyan families who want to escape terror and assimilate to western values. The question is it worth accepting them and taking on the risk of bringing in those who wish to harm us? A cigarrete smoker can smoke a pack a day for life and go without ever getting any lung disease. That dosen't make it smart, or brave. I don't moralize bravery or tolerance, only that there are better metrics for assessing who should come to a country than if they are Libyan or not. That where they are from is not the dominant fact in determining if they will be able assimilate. It said you were a coward because assume your route of denying all Libyans access is the most logical way because it requires nothing of you. Any amount of risk, no matter how small, it so much for you. And as always, you act as if this belief is perfectly logical and rational, which is the cornerstone of most xenophobic views. | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 25 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 12:39 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:35 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:30 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. That doesn't matter. The ideology penetrated, whether it's first generation, second generation, third generation is not as relevant. If he decided to not blow himself up and have kids, guess what? They aren't going to be raised with UK values. Some people are just born bad because of where their families are from, we got it. Their barbaric culture is flawed cannot conform with western values. It is the burden of the western civilizations to uplift them and make them civil. On May 25 2017 12:32 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. What is irrational about fearing the acceptance of immigrants/refugees with contrasting values, coming from a relatively lawless place where ISIS is rampant and it is difficult to assess the motivations of each individual? You see xenophobia, I see common sense. If you are a coward, it makes perfect sense. I am not burdened with that problem. It's just risk assessment, which you fail to aknowledge by moralizing with "bravery" "tolerance" etc. There are good libyan families who want to escape terror and assimilate to western values. The question is it worth accepting them and taking on the risk of bringing in those who wish to harm us? A cigarrete smoker can smoke a pack a day for life and go without ever getting any lung disease. That dosen't make it smart, or brave. I don't moralize bravery or tolerance, only that there are better metrics for assessing who should come to a country than if they are Libyan or not. That where they are from is not the dominant fact in determining if they will be able assimilate. It said you were a coward because assume your route of denying all Libyans access is the most logical way because it requires nothing of you. Any amount of risk, no matter how small, it so much for you. And as always, you act as if this belief is perfectly logical and rational, which is the cornerstone of most xenophobic views. Take the following into consideration before you call me a xenophobe (tbh xenomorphs are pretty scary). 1) There is a radical Ideology with strong propaganda that drives people to end their own lives along with others for salvation. 2) Certain countries are rampant with this ideology, and even more dangerously has sympathizers to a significant degree. 3) It is hard to completely verify people's motives, identity when they are coming from these regions where laws are not adequately enforced. 4) This is a problem that is incredibly hard to solve from the inside, once they are in, you have to violate their civil liberties to be able to prevent it. If all of that makes sense for you to be open and accepting of Libyans, or any other terror rampant country, go ahead and call me a xenophobe. I'll gladly accept that label. | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 25 2017 12:50 Nebuchad wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 12:39 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:35 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:30 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. That doesn't matter. The ideology penetrated, whether it's first generation, second generation, third generation is not as relevant. If he decided to not blow himself up and have kids, guess what? They aren't going to be raised with UK values. Some people are just born bad because of where their families are from, we got it. Their barbaric culture is flawed cannot conform with western values. It is the burden of the western civilizations to uplift them and make them civil. On May 25 2017 12:32 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. What is irrational about fearing the acceptance of immigrants/refugees with contrasting values, coming from a relatively lawless place where ISIS is rampant and it is difficult to assess the motivations of each individual? You see xenophobia, I see common sense. If you are a coward, it makes perfect sense. I am not burdened with that problem. It's just risk assessment, which you fail to aknowledge by moralizing with "bravery" "tolerance" etc. There are good libyan families who want to escape terror and assimilate to western values. The question is, is it worth accepting them and taking on the risk of bringing in those who wish to harm us? A cigarrete smoker can smoke a pack a day for life and go without ever getting any lung disease. That dosen't make it smart, or brave. Like I said, here's my far right proposal: I've done some risk assessment and noticed that a lot of criminals and terrorists are young males, so I'm offering that we jail young males from 17 to say 28 or something (we can discuss the ages), and as such we make our society way safer by getting rid of the most problematic population. I mean sure some of these would never have done any crimes but does that matter in the face of all of this security? They have rights and privilges when they are inside the country. You can't just risk assess them and kick them out lol, you can risk assess and screen people out form ever entering. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 25 2017 13:01 biology]major wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:39 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:35 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:30 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. That doesn't matter. The ideology penetrated, whether it's first generation, second generation, third generation is not as relevant. If he decided to not blow himself up and have kids, guess what? They aren't going to be raised with UK values. Some people are just born bad because of where their families are from, we got it. Their barbaric culture is flawed cannot conform with western values. It is the burden of the western civilizations to uplift them and make them civil. On May 25 2017 12:32 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. What is irrational about fearing the acceptance of immigrants/refugees with contrasting values, coming from a relatively lawless place where ISIS is rampant and it is difficult to assess the motivations of each individual? You see xenophobia, I see common sense. If you are a coward, it makes perfect sense. I am not burdened with that problem. It's just risk assessment, which you fail to aknowledge by moralizing with "bravery" "tolerance" etc. There are good libyan families who want to escape terror and assimilate to western values. The question is it worth accepting them and taking on the risk of bringing in those who wish to harm us? A cigarrete smoker can smoke a pack a day for life and go without ever getting any lung disease. That dosen't make it smart, or brave. I don't moralize bravery or tolerance, only that there are better metrics for assessing who should come to a country than if they are Libyan or not. That where they are from is not the dominant fact in determining if they will be able assimilate. It said you were a coward because assume your route of denying all Libyans access is the most logical way because it requires nothing of you. Any amount of risk, no matter how small, it so much for you. And as always, you act as if this belief is perfectly logical and rational, which is the cornerstone of most xenophobic views. Take the following into consideration before you call me a xenophobe (tbh xenomorphs are pretty scary). 1) There is a radical Ideology with strong propaganda that drives people to end their own lives along with others for salvation. 2) Certain countries are rampant with this ideology, and even more dangerously has sympathizers to an significant degree. 3) It is hard to completely verify people's motives, identity when they are coming from these regions where laws are not adequately enforced. 4) This is a problem that is incredibly hard to solve from the inside, once they are in, you have to violate their civil liberties to be able to stop it. If all of that makes sense for you to be open and accepting of Libyans, or any other terror rampant country, go ahead and call me a xenophobe. I'll gladly accept that label. Except for the fact that you attempted to apply that to someone that was not raised in that culture, the bomber. He was born and raised in the UK. When informed of your error, you said it didn't matter because he was Libyan and rambled on about generations assimilating. You have your pre-conceived view on the subject and then back fill your logic until it meets. And as always, your logic lacks nuance and is based on a simplistic understanding, since is parents came to the UK decades ago. You talk about immigration, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Unless you believe that western nations should ban people from the Middle East for the next 30-40 years. | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 25 2017 13:08 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 13:01 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:39 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:35 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:30 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. That doesn't matter. The ideology penetrated, whether it's first generation, second generation, third generation is not as relevant. If he decided to not blow himself up and have kids, guess what? They aren't going to be raised with UK values. Some people are just born bad because of where their families are from, we got it. Their barbaric culture is flawed cannot conform with western values. It is the burden of the western civilizations to uplift them and make them civil. On May 25 2017 12:32 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. What is irrational about fearing the acceptance of immigrants/refugees with contrasting values, coming from a relatively lawless place where ISIS is rampant and it is difficult to assess the motivations of each individual? You see xenophobia, I see common sense. If you are a coward, it makes perfect sense. I am not burdened with that problem. It's just risk assessment, which you fail to aknowledge by moralizing with "bravery" "tolerance" etc. There are good libyan families who want to escape terror and assimilate to western values. The question is it worth accepting them and taking on the risk of bringing in those who wish to harm us? A cigarrete smoker can smoke a pack a day for life and go without ever getting any lung disease. That dosen't make it smart, or brave. I don't moralize bravery or tolerance, only that there are better metrics for assessing who should come to a country than if they are Libyan or not. That where they are from is not the dominant fact in determining if they will be able assimilate. It said you were a coward because assume your route of denying all Libyans access is the most logical way because it requires nothing of you. Any amount of risk, no matter how small, it so much for you. And as always, you act as if this belief is perfectly logical and rational, which is the cornerstone of most xenophobic views. Take the following into consideration before you call me a xenophobe (tbh xenomorphs are pretty scary). 1) There is a radical Ideology with strong propaganda that drives people to end their own lives along with others for salvation. 2) Certain countries are rampant with this ideology, and even more dangerously has sympathizers to an significant degree. 3) It is hard to completely verify people's motives, identity when they are coming from these regions where laws are not adequately enforced. 4) This is a problem that is incredibly hard to solve from the inside, once they are in, you have to violate their civil liberties to be able to stop it. If all of that makes sense for you to be open and accepting of Libyans, or any other terror rampant country, go ahead and call me a xenophobe. I'll gladly accept that label. Except for the fact that you attempted to apply that to someone that was not raised in that culture, the bomber. He was born and raised in the UK. When informed of your error, you said it didn't matter because he was Libyan and rambled on about generations assimilating. You have your pre-conceived view on the subject and then back fill your logic until it meets. And as always, your logic lacks nuance and is based on a simplistic understanding, since is parents came to the UK decades ago. You talk about immigration, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Unless you believe that western nations should ban people form the Middle East for the next 30-40 years. Do you understand how conservative people are from that part of the world? How carefully their parents protect their children and brainwash them with their ideology? Making them prone to being radicalized?The irony of this is you are viewing this purely through a western lens, assuming other people are like you, open and tolerant with a relatively loose family unit. Strong parental influence, combined with being a refugee and feeling out of place, combined with social media propaganda campaign to vulnerable targets. Oh boy, that's trouble. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 25 2017 13:16 biology]major wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 13:08 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 13:01 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:39 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:35 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:30 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. That doesn't matter. The ideology penetrated, whether it's first generation, second generation, third generation is not as relevant. If he decided to not blow himself up and have kids, guess what? They aren't going to be raised with UK values. Some people are just born bad because of where their families are from, we got it. Their barbaric culture is flawed cannot conform with western values. It is the burden of the western civilizations to uplift them and make them civil. On May 25 2017 12:32 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. What is irrational about fearing the acceptance of immigrants/refugees with contrasting values, coming from a relatively lawless place where ISIS is rampant and it is difficult to assess the motivations of each individual? You see xenophobia, I see common sense. If you are a coward, it makes perfect sense. I am not burdened with that problem. It's just risk assessment, which you fail to aknowledge by moralizing with "bravery" "tolerance" etc. There are good libyan families who want to escape terror and assimilate to western values. The question is it worth accepting them and taking on the risk of bringing in those who wish to harm us? A cigarrete smoker can smoke a pack a day for life and go without ever getting any lung disease. That dosen't make it smart, or brave. I don't moralize bravery or tolerance, only that there are better metrics for assessing who should come to a country than if they are Libyan or not. That where they are from is not the dominant fact in determining if they will be able assimilate. It said you were a coward because assume your route of denying all Libyans access is the most logical way because it requires nothing of you. Any amount of risk, no matter how small, it so much for you. And as always, you act as if this belief is perfectly logical and rational, which is the cornerstone of most xenophobic views. Take the following into consideration before you call me a xenophobe (tbh xenomorphs are pretty scary). 1) There is a radical Ideology with strong propaganda that drives people to end their own lives along with others for salvation. 2) Certain countries are rampant with this ideology, and even more dangerously has sympathizers to an significant degree. 3) It is hard to completely verify people's motives, identity when they are coming from these regions where laws are not adequately enforced. 4) This is a problem that is incredibly hard to solve from the inside, once they are in, you have to violate their civil liberties to be able to stop it. If all of that makes sense for you to be open and accepting of Libyans, or any other terror rampant country, go ahead and call me a xenophobe. I'll gladly accept that label. Except for the fact that you attempted to apply that to someone that was not raised in that culture, the bomber. He was born and raised in the UK. When informed of your error, you said it didn't matter because he was Libyan and rambled on about generations assimilating. You have your pre-conceived view on the subject and then back fill your logic until it meets. And as always, your logic lacks nuance and is based on a simplistic understanding, since is parents came to the UK decades ago. You talk about immigration, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Unless you believe that western nations should ban people form the Middle East for the next 30-40 years. Do you understand how conservative people are from that part of the world? How carefully their parents protect their children and brainwash them with their ideology? Making them prone to being radicalized?The irony of this is you are viewing this purely through a western lens, assuming other people are like you, open and tolerant with a relatively loose family unit. Strong parental influence from that part of the world, combined with being a refugee and feeling out of place, combined with social media propaganda campaign to vulnerable targets. Oh boy, that's trouble. I grew up in a rural community of 900 people that couldn't even support an elementary school. So please explain to me how these conservative people work like I didn't grow up surrounded by them. But you clearly have formed your world view on this subject, so I will leave you to justifying it. | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 25 2017 13:22 Plansix wrote: Show nested quote + On May 25 2017 13:16 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 13:08 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 13:01 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:51 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:39 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:35 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:30 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. He was born in the UK. That doesn't matter. The ideology penetrated, whether it's first generation, second generation, third generation is not as relevant. If he decided to not blow himself up and have kids, guess what? They aren't going to be raised with UK values. Some people are just born bad because of where their families are from, we got it. Their barbaric culture is flawed cannot conform with western values. It is the burden of the western civilizations to uplift them and make them civil. On May 25 2017 12:32 biology]major wrote: On May 25 2017 12:05 Plansix wrote: On May 25 2017 12:01 biology]major wrote: Uk's biggest mistake was accepting refugees and immigrants from Libya, they are a dangerous bunch. It is not reversible now, this is a problem that you deal with by PREVENTION. Once you are infected, the only arguments left will be kwark's, which is essentially a rationalization in dealing with an unsolvable situation. This is some high quality xenophobia right here. I like infected and the mass labeling of an entire demographic. And the whole time it has the tone of being a completely rational conclusion. What is irrational about fearing the acceptance of immigrants/refugees with contrasting values, coming from a relatively lawless place where ISIS is rampant and it is difficult to assess the motivations of each individual? You see xenophobia, I see common sense. If you are a coward, it makes perfect sense. I am not burdened with that problem. It's just risk assessment, which you fail to aknowledge by moralizing with "bravery" "tolerance" etc. There are good libyan families who want to escape terror and assimilate to western values. The question is it worth accepting them and taking on the risk of bringing in those who wish to harm us? A cigarrete smoker can smoke a pack a day for life and go without ever getting any lung disease. That dosen't make it smart, or brave. I don't moralize bravery or tolerance, only that there are better metrics for assessing who should come to a country than if they are Libyan or not. That where they are from is not the dominant fact in determining if they will be able assimilate. It said you were a coward because assume your route of denying all Libyans access is the most logical way because it requires nothing of you. Any amount of risk, no matter how small, it so much for you. And as always, you act as if this belief is perfectly logical and rational, which is the cornerstone of most xenophobic views. Take the following into consideration before you call me a xenophobe (tbh xenomorphs are pretty scary). 1) There is a radical Ideology with strong propaganda that drives people to end their own lives along with others for salvation. 2) Certain countries are rampant with this ideology, and even more dangerously has sympathizers to an significant degree. 3) It is hard to completely verify people's motives, identity when they are coming from these regions where laws are not adequately enforced. 4) This is a problem that is incredibly hard to solve from the inside, once they are in, you have to violate their civil liberties to be able to stop it. If all of that makes sense for you to be open and accepting of Libyans, or any other terror rampant country, go ahead and call me a xenophobe. I'll gladly accept that label. Except for the fact that you attempted to apply that to someone that was not raised in that culture, the bomber. He was born and raised in the UK. When informed of your error, you said it didn't matter because he was Libyan and rambled on about generations assimilating. You have your pre-conceived view on the subject and then back fill your logic until it meets. And as always, your logic lacks nuance and is based on a simplistic understanding, since is parents came to the UK decades ago. You talk about immigration, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Unless you believe that western nations should ban people form the Middle East for the next 30-40 years. Do you understand how conservative people are from that part of the world? How carefully their parents protect their children and brainwash them with their ideology? Making them prone to being radicalized?The irony of this is you are viewing this purely through a western lens, assuming other people are like you, open and tolerant with a relatively loose family unit. Strong parental influence from that part of the world, combined with being a refugee and feeling out of place, combined with social media propaganda campaign to vulnerable targets. Oh boy, that's trouble. I grew up in a rural community of 900 people that couldn't even support an elementary school. So please explain to me how these conservative people work like I didn't grow up surrounded by them. But you clearly have formed your world view on this subject, so I will leave you to justifying it. You are free to be open and tolerant to your own detriment against all reason, but just remember that the people being accepted are NOT open and tolerant. Now that isn't a reason to ban people from entering but then if you combine that with lawless countries with rampant ideological extremism, then I see a clear solution. Honestly, the fact that I have to explain this baffles me, but I guess we won't see eye to eye. | ||
| ||
Next event in 7h 11m
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g9009 shahzam1155 NuckleDu629 WinterStarcraft354 Maynarde129 ViBE37 rGuardiaN23 semphis_23 Liquid`Ken14 Temp012 Organizations
StarCraft 2 • practicex 30 StarCraft: Brood War• Gussbus • LaughNgamez Trovo • Poblha • aXEnki • Migwel • intothetv • Laughngamez YouTube • Kozan • IndyKCrew League of Legends Other Games |
Kung Fu Cup
H.4.0.S
OSC
GSL Code S
herO vs Reynor
soO vs GuMiho
OSC
World Team League
Korean StarCraft League
Replay Cast
World Team League
Chat StarLeague
[ Show More ] H.4.0.S
BSL
CSO Cup
Chat StarLeague
Sparkling Tuna Cup
World Team League
BSL
ForJumy Cup
|
|