How many Syrian children are coming here?

[iSore]

Mark Benson said:

But your responses appear to be saying that if someone does insult another's belief (which many disagree with), the reaction of violence, even fatal violence is a justified response.

Really?

[del mar]

Article in yesterdays Times.

If the Army pulls out of Afghanistan completely there "could" be up to 4million refugees coming to Europe.

Just think of the young workforce Germany would have then !

[Mark Benson]

iSore said:

Mark Benson said:

But your responses appear to be saying that if someone does insult another's belief (which many disagree with), the reaction of violence, even fatal violence is a justified response.

Really?

As I was typing (damn you, work) you replied to another poster and said it was understandable, not acceptable so I'll back down on that one, you at least are clear it's not justified.

[danllama]

iSore said:

I guess we shall have to disagree on this one. I'm not overly sensitive on Islam (I am CofE) but I can understand why a group of hate fuelled extremists committed the Paris massacre.

As simple as that.

Wow.

[del mar]

iSore said:

Criticism of some aspects is healthy enough.

You are a braver man than me !

I am not sure of the real difference between drawing cartoons to "poke fun" and criticising the religion.

As you said earlier they take their Religion very seriously, some would not appreciate you making healthy criticisms. Does it follow that if you were killed for making healthy criticisms, then more fool you ....

[danllama]

del mar said:

You are a braver man than me !

I am not sure of the real difference between drawing cartoons to "poke fun" and criticising the religion.

As you said earlier they take their Religion very seriously, some would not appreciate you making healthy criticisms. Does it follow that if you were killed for making healthy criticisms, then more fool you ....

He'd understand it.

Simple as that.

[SKP555]

iSore said:

Stupid, unfunny and offensive cartoons? Just don't. It's not worth pissing folk off for a cheap laugh.

Is it?

It absolutely is worth it.

It's the very basis of free speech, which IMO is the most important freedom we have.

The alternative is to let ant angry, shouty and violent mob determine what we can and can't say. If Muslims can gain this privelage through violence then why not Christians, Sikhs, environmentalists or the Kia owner's club?

Who decides what's stupid and offensive? A board of censors? An angry mob? Cartoonists themselves?

Either you accept mob rule or you give one religion (yours I presume) a special, exalted status. Neither is acceptable to me.

Violence is always the fault of the person who initiates violence. If your response to a cartoon or a joke or an opinion is to smash things up and hurt people then you are wrong. Always and everywhere. No ifs, no buts.

[del mar]

SKP555 said:

iSore said:

Stupid, unfunny and offensive cartoons? Just don't. It's not worth pissing folk off for a cheap laugh.

Is it?

It absolutely is worth it.

It's the very basis of free speech, which IMO is the most important freedom we have.

The alternative is to let ant angry, shouty and violent mob determine what we can and can't say. If Muslims can gain this privelage through violence then why not Christians, Sikhs, environmentalists or the Kia owner's club?

Who decides what's stupid and offensive? A board of censors? An angry mob? Cartoonists themselves?

Either you accept mob rule or you give one religion (yours I presume) a special, exalted status. Neither is acceptable to me.

Violence is always the fault of the person who initiates violence. If your response to a cartoon or a joke or an opinion is to smash things up and hurt people then you are wrong. Always and everywhere. No ifs, no buts.

In the 21st century or even the 5th century no protection can be given to anybody who bought the original Kia Pride.

[Rich_W]

jjlynn27 said:

You also don't have a problem typing crap about Rowling's tax affairs or Melania's education record. Infowars is made for people like you. You are the target audience.

I said "id be surprised" And I am surprised
Without trawling through my posts like you clearly have I suggested that Mrs Trump was actually fairly educated. I stand by that. I read that Mrs Obama wasn't educated. And I was wrong. See Easy to admit a mistake.

YOU however, like so many of the "libtard" Wont ever answer a direct question or suggestion without assuming the person asking is a deplorable. Is that the right word as used by your beloved war monger, doormat, Clinton who values her political aspirations MORE than divorcing a serial womaniser?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/bill-clint...

But of course Hilary is pro Woman and anti judging a woman on her looks. Right up until she has to do something about it.

But would you Lynn ever admit a failing? Don't make me laugh!

jjlynn27 said:

rscott said:

Oh dear. Mr Watson has made himself look somewhat stupid on Twitter:-

https://www.indy100.com/article/sweden-donald-trum...

Are you actually saying that this is the same guy, who, according to one of the PH dimwits, was 'calling out' celebrities for not doing something that they said they would?

If you'd paid attention (and obviously critical thought is impossible in a libtard echo chamber)

Aquob posted that about 10 mins after his request to Watson. Hardly reasonable to expect instant reply.


And secondly Watson has paid $2000 to a independent NYC journalist. Unlike Rowling, Lineker, et al In fact he had paid and put the info out there BEFORE YOU posted your morale outrage

[SpeedMattersNot]

Rich_W said:

jjlynn27 said:

You also don't have a problem typing crap about Rowling's tax affairs or Melania's education record. Infowars is made for people like you. You are the target audience.

I said "id be surprised" And I am surprised
Without trawling through my posts like you clearly have I suggested that Mrs Trump was actually fairly educated. I stand by that. I read that Mrs Obama wasn't educated. And I was wrong. See Easy to admit a mistake.

YOU however, like so many of the "libtard" Wont ever answer a direct question or suggestion without assuming the person asking is a deplorable. Is that the right word as used by your beloved war monger, doormat, Clinton who values her political aspirations MORE than divorcing a serial womaniser?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/bill-clint...

But of course Hilary is pro Woman and anti judging a woman on her looks. Right up until she has to do something about it.

But would you Lynn ever admit a failing? Don't make me laugh!

jjlynn27 said:

rscott said:

Oh dear. Mr Watson has made himself look somewhat stupid on Twitter:-

https://www.indy100.com/article/sweden-donald-trum...

Are you actually saying that this is the same guy, who, according to one of the PH dimwits, was 'calling out' celebrities for not doing something that they said they would?

If you'd paid attention (and obviously critical thought is impossible in a libtard echo chamber)

Aquob posted that about 10 mins after his request to Watson. Hardly reasonable to expect instant reply.


And secondly Watson has paid $2000 to a independent NYC journalist. Unlike Rowling, Lineker, et al In fact he had paid and put the info out there BEFORE YOU posted your morale outrage

Lol, you don't think Rowling has donated to charity? I'd imagine in one year she's at least contributed to the government more than you and me combined for the rest of our lives. And you're arguing money? Are you sure that's sensible before I do any research?

[Rich_W]

SpeedMattersNot said:

Lol, you don't think Rowling has donated to charity? I'd imagine in one year she's at least contributed to the government more than you and me combined for the rest of our lives. And you're arguing money? Are you sure that's sensible before I do any research?

I don't know if she has. What I do know is that she is using her platform to tell the government to take in more refugees. But it's not like she hasn't got the means to help that process. Money where your mouth it counts for a lot when people are working hard for minimum wage and being expected to donate to charity when those with larger bank balances don't appear to be supporting the same thing.

I'm not arguing money? I'm pointing out Watson has paid up on his Tweet about paying for a journo to go to Malmo and did so last nught. Whereas Lynn here just spouts off the out of date tripe from MSM sources that he was reneging on the deal Without ACTUALLY doing her own research.

I would always prefer research from a variety of sources than just "assuming" PJW is wrong. but I guess that's the "alt-right" for you. (Whatever that phrase even means!) Damn us wanting facts to back up things rather than just shouting "you racists" or rioting at anyone we don't agree with

[e21Mark]

Rich_W said:

I don't know if she has. What I do know is that she is using her platform to tell the government to take in more refugees.:

Isn't she simply giving her opinion on what she feels we, as a society, should be doing for those in need?

I agree with you on the whole facts thing though. Both sides need to be more careful with their sources. It seems facts were somewhat lacking with regard to Sweden and the recent events Mr Trump spoke of.

[jjlynn27]

Rich_W said:

jjlynn27 said:

You also don't have a problem typing crap about Rowling's tax affairs or Melania's education record. Infowars is made for people like you. You are the target audience.

I said "id be surprised" And I am surprised
Without trawling through my posts like you clearly have I suggested that Mrs Trump was actually fairly educated.
I stand by that.

I do understand why someone like you would think that university dropout is 'fairly educated'. Perspective, eh?

Rich_W said:

I read that Mrs Obama wasn't educated. And I was wrong. See Easy to admit a mistake.

That's the problem with reading / watching Infowars. It will always make you look dumber than you actually are. Which, while very difficult in your case, is clearly not impossible.

Rich_W said:

YOU however, like so many of the "libtard" Wont ever answer a direct question or suggestion without assuming the person asking is a deplorable.

Deplorable? Don't use the words that you don't understand a meaning of. I don't that you are deplorable. I do think that you are exceptionally thick.

Rich_W said:

Is that the right word as used by your beloved war monger, doormat, Clinton who values her political aspirations MORE than divorcing a serial womaniser?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/bill-clint...

But of course Hilary is pro Woman and anti judging a woman on her looks. Right up until she has to do something about it.

But would you Lynn ever admit a failing? Don't make me laugh!

That would make some sense if I was not on the record saying that I honestly don't know who is a worse candidate.

Rich_W said:

jjlynn27 said:

rscott said:

Oh dear. Mr Watson has made himself look somewhat stupid on Twitter:-

https://www.indy100.com/article/sweden-donald-trum...

Are you actually saying that this is the same guy, who, according to one of the PH dimwits, was 'calling out' celebrities for not doing something that they said they would?

If you'd paid attention (and obviously critical thought is impossible in a libtard echo chamber)

Aquob posted that about 10 mins after his request to Watson. Hardly reasonable to expect instant reply.


And secondly Watson has paid $2000 to a independent NYC journalist. Unlike Rowling, Lineker, et al In fact he had paid and put the info out there BEFORE YOU posted your morale outrage

What 'morale' outrage? There is just pointing and laughing at a nutjob. Nothing more, nothing less. Pretty much just like this post. JK Rowling and Lineker have been paying more taxes than, every single moron who says 'you should house them in your own home' put together.


Random hints; your, you are, a, an, moral, morale.

[SKP555]

iSore said:

Cheap laughs

Hardly "cheap" laughs when those offended by jokes would have people silenced, ostracised, prosecuted and even killed for making those jokes.

[e21Mark]

It's a shame that discussion / debate on here turn into abuse and personal attack.

[Goaty Bill 2]

e21Mark said:

It's a shame that discussion / debate on here turn into abuse and personal attack.

As so nearly always does.
And the instant application of labels.

Just as an example, because it seems to have become the 21st century word of choice: "misogynist".
Does no one any longer think that one might be a 'bit sexist' or 'slightly disrespectful' towards someone of the female sex, without meeting the definition of "misogyny"?
If anyone is unclear regarding sexism vs misogyny, I would strongly suggest a dictionary in preference to a website of any particular bias.

Hatred of a particular person or particular group of similarly minded/gendered/sexually orientated people does not make automatically make someone a/an <insert label>.

I seriously doubt anyone that expresses a strong dislike for Milo Yiannopoulos (see other NP&E thread), will be automatically called out as a homophobe.

One of the wonderful things about public debate amongst mature and intelligent people, is the possibility that someone might actually change/alter their position on certain matters or events.

If a person is unable to express an opinion without being instantly labelled, often based upon statements in previous threads rather than the statement made in the current thread, the discussion so often descends instantly into muck slinging and name calling.

It is really quite unfair to others in the discussion.
Quite simply, it is impolite, and does not shine a favourable light on the participants.

[SKP555]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

As so nearly always does.
And the instant application of labels.

Just as an example, because it seems to have become the 21st century word of choice: "misogynist".
Does no one any longer think that one might be a 'bit sexist' or 'slightly disrespectful' towards someone of the female sex, without meeting the definition of "misogyny"?
If anyone is unclear regarding sexism vs misogyny, I would strongly suggest a dictionary in preference to a website of any particular bias.

Hatred of a particular person or particular group of similarly minded/gendered/sexually orientated people does not make automatically make someone a/an <insert label>.

I seriously doubt anyone that expresses a strong dislike for Milo Yiannopoulos (see other NP&E thread), will be automatically called out as a homophobe.

One of the wonderful things about public debate amongst mature and intelligent people, is the possibility that someone might actually change/alter their position on certain matters or events.

If a person is unable to express an opinion without being instantly labelled, often based upon statements in previous threads rather than the statement made in the current thread, the discussion so often descends instantly into muck slinging and name calling.

It is really quite unfair to others in the discussion.
Quite simply, it is impolite, and does not shine a favourable light on the participants.

IMO a necessary condition for the possibility of civilised debate and the possibility that someone will change their mind is the assumption that those you engage in debate with do so in good faith.

All too often this is not the case and the starting assumption of one or both sides is that the other side are deiven by malice or stupidity.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Funkycoldribena said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

One of the wonderful things about public debate amongst mature and intelligent people, is the possibility that someone might actually change/alter their position on certain matters or events.

Has it ever happened?

Not often in my experience (here), but I have had my outlook / opinion altered at times, and have I think managed the same at times.

An advantage that I neglected to mention, and further justification of free speech, is that should I make a poorly developed argument (let's face it, we see lots of those, I have made some I am sure), then by being criticised (rather than simply labelled and told to fk off), I might consider to how to adjust or reword my argument so that my intent is clearer, and perhaps becomes more palatable.

We do not form our thoughts or arguments in a vacuum, or as another said "People don't own thoughts, thoughts own people." (I will credit Jordan Peterson with this, as I have not seen it expressed elsewhere, though it almost certainly must have been in some format).

Often times an idea or argument that sounds good, (to ourselves), when one person says it, will not seem so good once others have criticised us for it.

SKP555 said:

IMO a necessary condition for the possibility of civilised debate and the possibility that someone will change their mind is the assumption that those you engage in debate with do so in good faith.

All too often this is not the case and the starting assumption of one or both sides is that the other side are driven by malice or stupidity.

And yet many of the public debates which people favour are those in which their 'side' wins.
But I agree that the first condition will help. But we cannot expect that every debate will change someone's mind, for better or worse.
One only has to look at the comments section below most politically based youtube videos to realise that many people are beyond being reasonable or rational.
Most of us hold many views that are based more upon 'gut feel' than any factual information.

You cannot reason a man out of a position he was not reasoned into in the first place.
- Jonathan Swift


Many people are without doubt driven by agendas, ideologies, fears or 'pet projects'.
Too many ideas are put forth regularly that are emotive rather than rational, but sometimes the emotive argument is based upon genuine ethics, even if those ethics are not shared by others.

If 120 years ago you suggested that something was "the Christian thing to do", you might end up discussing if it truly was or not [a Christian thing], if you put that argument forward now, 30% of the membership would likely pillory you for even suggesting such a thing, a further 30% would refuse to listen to anything you said 'on principal', and a further 30% would argue that by suggesting that, it was already proven to be a bad idea in and of itself, and that doesn't consider how many would want to begin the atheism vs religion debate again.
My example and break down of percentages is purely hypothetical, and not being suggested as a topic for debate
What would be unlikely to occur is a debate regarding the actual ethics of the question.

I think though I am suggesting in my full post, that it would be better if some effort was made to not make that assumption before responding.
There clearly is history between some people here, but I suggest that the majority of contributors would prefer if those with history would leave that in the threads in which it developed, and create a new history based upon the subject at hand.

Too many opening posts, to my mind, begin with quoting a favoured target opponent, and then launching a personal attack. As I said "it does not shine a favourable light on the participants".

[SKP555]

People very rarely change their minds and rarer still admit it publicly.

The assumption of good intentions ia more important for mw. Without that there isn't really any debate to be had. Just insults and attempts to expose the malice of your opponents. Something that happens far too often IMO.

[Rich_W]

jjlynn27 said:

I do understand why someone like you would think that university dropout is 'fairly educated'. Perspective, eh?

...


That's the problem with reading / watching Infowars. It will always make you look dumber than you actually are. Which, while very difficult in your case, is clearly not impossible.

...

Deplorable? Don't use the words that you don't understand a meaning of. I don't that you are deplorable. I do think that you are exceptionally thick.

Stay classy

BTW Mrs Trump speaks (according to Wiki) 6 languages. From what apparently were quite modest beginnings. Anyone that impoves themselves is ok in my book. I can barely do 3 to any sort of level. Though I admit she probably can't rebuild a V12.

BTW2 According to the Telegraph link I found. The following people didn't finish or don't go to Uni. Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, John Caudwell. Education is just about grades. In the same way money doesn't buy class.

Funkycoldribena said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

One of the wonderful things about public debate amongst mature and intelligent people, is the possibility that someone might actually change/alter their position on certain matters or events.

Has it ever happened?

Yes I would say so. Just that it's generally people on the centre right who accept facts more often that will modify or change their view. People from the left tend to work on emotions so they never accept their internal thinking can be wrong.