Odeon back yourself.

[Al Swearegen]

My interpretation of Odeon's latest efforts.

In daring to mention an agreement in principle to some merits of an idea to "turn off the mains" (flow of Muslim immigrants) to "fix the leak" (radicalised Islamic Extremists that were being planted by ISIS that the current vetting system was too poor to pick up from decent moderate Muslims immigrants) before "turning the mains back on again" (continuing normal immigration levels with better systems in place), Odeon lost himself in emotional arguments.

When asked to back his assertions of me being a bigot, AGAIN, he was flat-footed. Even moreso than his intellectual dishonesty claims. He had nothing.

Instead of being honest and perhaps being brave enough to put up his hand and say "You know what, I still don't agree with you, but whilst I don't consider this idea to be practical, workable, helpful or with any merit, I was wrong to call you a bigot. He did what some people will do....Double Down.

He had no "gotcha" when I asked him to back himself. So what he is doing is a long established tactic of throwing bullshit, keep calling me a bigot, and watching my reaction for anything that he can say "Aha! See i was right you are bigoted".

This is NOT backing a claim.

*Calling me a bigot does not back the claim of me being a bigot.
*Bringing up what is on Donald Trump's webpage or his campaign book has no bearing on your claim of me being a bigot as I have not vouched an opinion on either so neither matter in context of what I have supported in principle or my reasons being that support.
*My stated beliefs of the ills to society that is bought with radical Islamic Extremists is NOT bigotry either. I have never said ALL Muslims are a threat nor have I maligned moderate Muslims once.
*Stating your belief that the problem is not as big as is claimed is subjectively moot at absolute best and at worst is buffoonery AND it makes no claim as to me a bigot.
*Making claims as to unconstitutionality for America to protect its borders from a verified danger is no claim of bigotry reasonable to imagine that America has no right to do so.
*Speaking about my Muslim friends (who I have spoken on here about before this thread) is not some point to you as to supposed bigotry on my part. That is desperate and stupid.

This in mind, Odeon, you have NO basis to call me a bigot. You did not like my agreement in Principle with an idea you did not and got emotional. You dropped rationality AGAIN and chose to attack irrationally and emotionally. Now because I have called you on it, you try the above points to wiggle your way into a position. It is simply wedge pushing. If I give any of these points validity then the next point is stronger and so on. Not letting these things slide. You will have no handhold with any of these tactics.

You are doing this whilst waiting for me to somehow say anything that could be vaguely bigoted, so that you can swoop in and say "There! See you are bigoted" and then apply the standard retroactively.

None of this is honest or genuine. Its all pretty weak, emotional and desperate. Terribly dishonest.

I see what you are doing and why, Odeon. Make a proper argument. You make the claim properly then back it properly. If you can't, then at least have the testicular fortitude to admit that you fucked up. Weak as piss, Odeon.

[odeon]

Stop acting like one and I will stop calling you one. Dead easy.

[Al Swearegen]

Stop acting like one and I will stop calling you one. Dead easy.

I haven't been. The fact that I haven't, makes this a little difficult for you. Be real though. You calling me a bigot is nothing. You were calling me liar before that. Pissy before that and intellectually dishonest before that. Nothing in any of that.

Its you deflecting, because you are unable to back what you throw around when you are emotional.

[odeon]

"Emotional"?

You are still in a pissy mood.

[Al Swearegen]

"Emotional"?

You are still in a pissy mood.

Yup you do get emotional. You make emotionally invested claims without any rationality and then double down on your weak arguments.

['andersom']

I like that video of Ayaan.

I like how she sees Freedom, up in debate as the weapon against extremism.

Reading an extended interview with her a while ago fits into what she says here. Her hope is for a big chunk in the Muslim world, her hope is people in the Muslim world embracing the critical thinking. Now already happening in practice, like wanting to drink, or wanting the benefits of western society, and evolving into the theoretical embracing, towards that critical thinking.

A process that happened in Christian thinking, and evolved at high speed the past few decades. She sees it coming in the Muslim world. Any support the west can give there will pay off big time.

I agree with her that the West should take pride in Freedom. That's where an answer is that will work.

[Al Swearegen]

I like that video of Ayaan.

I like how she sees Freedom, up in debate as the weapon against extremism.

Reading an extended interview with her a while ago fits into what she says here. Her hope is for a big chunk in the Muslim world, her hope is people in the Muslim world embracing the critical thinking. Now already happening in practice, like wanting to drink, or wanting the benefits of western society, and evolving into the theoretical embracing, towards that critical thinking.

A process that happened in Christian thinking, and evolved at high speed the past few decades. She sees it coming in the Muslim world. Any support the west can give there will pay off big time.

I agree with her that the West should take pride in Freedom. That's where an answer is that will work.

I think like going to someone's house. They have a lock on the door and may invite you in. If you are in need, they may allow yo to stay long term. If you decide to molest the occupants or blow up the house or murder the occupants, you are not welcome in the house.

Immigration is not a right it is a privilege. You may be rejected or you may be let in at the country's pleasure.

['andersom']

There is a big difference in immigration ideas between Australia and lots of European countries.

I would never be able to become an Australian, because I have diagnosed autism.

Right now, there is a petition going on in my country, because a family is sent back to a country considered to be safe, yet one of the kids has autism, and he'll have to join the army in said country.

Completely different mindset.

I've not signed that petition. But I am glad immigration rules in the Netherlands are not as highly selective as they are in Australia. And that has to do with where and how I am raised.



I like what they started in Germany. A television program, in the language of the refugees, explaining life in Germany. Including the importance of freedom and equality.

The New Years Eve raping and sexual harassing in Germany was not because of refugees, is what was in the news today. It was mainly done by groups of North African men, who've been around in Germany way longer already. They should have been welcomed with the same information on what to expect and respect, when living in Germany.

The problem is not letting people in. The problem is not making them part of life and thoughts and values of the country when letting them in. Segregation in the seventies was easy. Lets import people to do the menial jobs for a while, they'll go back in ten years, we don't have to invest in making them part of our country. That is where things started to go wrong. Way back in the seventies. By not taking our own values serious presenting them to our guests, and not taking the guests we invited in serious, avoiding all contact. Giving them not a part in the house, but the shed, without proper interaction to make them appreciate our values.

[Al Swearegen]

There is a big difference in immigration ideas between Australia and lots of European countries.

I would never be able to become an Australian, because I have diagnosed autism.

Right now, there is a petition going on in my country, because a family is sent back to a country considered to be safe, yet one of the kids has autism, and he'll have to join the army in said country.

Completely different mindset.

I've not signed that petition. But I am glad immigration rules in the Netherlands are not as highly selective as they are in Australia. And that has to do with where and how I am raised.



I like what they started in Germany. A television program, in the language of the refugees, explaining life in Germany. Including the importance of freedom and equality.

The New Years Eve raping and sexual harassing in Germany was not because of refugees, is what was in the news today. It was mainly done by groups of North African men, who've been around in Germany way longer already. They should have been welcomed with the same information on what to expect and respect, when living in Germany.

The problem is not letting people in. The problem is not making them part of life and thoughts and values of the country when letting them in. Segregation in the seventies was easy. Lets import people to do the menial jobs for a while, they'll go back in ten years, we don't have to invest in making them part of our country. That is where things started to go wrong. Way back in the seventies. By not taking our own values serious presenting them to our guests, and not taking the guests we invited in serious, avoiding all contact. Giving them not a part in the house, but the shed, without proper interaction to make them appreciate our values.

I disagree.

No rational and decent person would think that you would immigrate or even visit a host country and rape its women and children and that would somehow be okay and just a values thing.

['andersom']

If you read the posts I made before, starting from the post as a reaction on the link of that woman saying rape was a cultural thing, you will see that I think it should be punished. Excluding people from punishment, because of their origin is stupid. Is not taking the crime, the victim and the criminal serious.

In case you missed it, I think the woman in that link is the bigot, for singling immigrants out and not taking their crime as serious as the same crime done by non immigrants.

That woman is a moron, if those are her words. (My knowledge of Swedish is almost non existent). Rape is rape.

It's bloody bigoted, singling Muslims out that way. Rape is a power game.

Keeping possible victims of rape inside and escorted all the time is the other side of the same power game.

And if people are not yet a full citizen, clearly they have to leave the country, without escaping punishment. When people have become full citizens, that is what they are, full citizens.

[Al Swearegen]

I agree entirely

[Al Swearegen]

A big part of what I believe to be Odeon's problem

No Odeon, you get to argue the argument I made, not the one you wanted me to make, and not for the intentions you would have preferred I had but for the ones I had. Call me a bigot, you get to back that shit up. I do not care that you got emotional and made your position harder to rationalise or argue. Back your shit up. No more being disingenuous, dishonest, or stupid. It is not cute. You do not get to change the argument to better suit, and you do not act stupid or confused to obfuscate your way away from dumb, emotional claims you made. None of that is backing yourself. At Intensitysquared.com you ought to back yourself and as commander in chief of this little site, you ought to lead from the front. Call ANY of your members here bigots. None of us are shrinking violets. This site is predicated on free speech BUT it has one rule...back yourself. Not hide, not bait and switch to easy arguments to defend, not lie, not be disingenuous, not redefine words or phrases to what you want them to mean when called on it. Back yourself.

Seems unable to do this?

[Al Swearegen]

More of Odeon falling over himself to try and build a case after having overreacted on emotional grounds.

Having no real grounds to call anything I said bigoted, he tries fabricating my position by trying a series of switch and baits.

Fucking pathetic and sad. If he "could" have backed himself, he would have but he relied on switch and baits and outright lying.

I'm sure blaming Muslims will sway the idiots, just as blaming Jews did a couple of years ago and still does, but it wouldn't help.

I don't blame Muslims though and YOU know I don't blame Muslims. I told you already, I am not playing bait and switch with you Odeon. I blame radicalised Muslim Extremists. That is NOT Muslims.
It is people with a completely different mentality. In the same way a moderate weekly church going Christian is hardly the same as Westboro Baptists. But you know that already, right?

Its weak to keep trying for this bait and switch isn't it , Odeon? Yup, I thought so too.

In fact, you still have to present proof for a ban to work. Any proof. Numbers, ideas, anything...? Don't be shy.

Do I have to present proof of a ban to work? I do not think I suggested a ban? I thought I simply supported in principle a temporary freeze whilst vetting procedures are improved?

What I have been saying is that banning Muslims at the US borders is stupid, bigoted and ineffective. I'm saying now as I have been saying all along that blaming 22% of the world'd population for the actions of a few fanatics is bigoted, counterproductive and stupid.

I do not give a damn about that position. I never suggested nor argued that position and I do not care to start.
Oh I know this is another bait and switch tactic.
Banning Muslims at the US borders is the Trump suggestion or policy on his website or campaign book that he made (that I vouched no opinion on) after suggesting his idea (that I happened to agree in principle with) about placing a temporary freeze on US Muslim immigrants whilst he fixes the subpar vetting systems used to vet radicalised Muslim extremists from Moderate Muslim immigrants.

I also know that YOU know which is and is not my position. You are both being an idiot and dishonest. Why? 

Might have been easier just to admit he was being emotional than double down and look like an idiot

[Al Swearegen]

Here is more lying....yay!!!

It is, however, bigoted to blame the religion for the actions of a few, and while you might not like being called a bigot, it's well within the definition.

I have blamed the religion for the actions of a few have I? Odeon why are you lying again? Care to show where I have said that I blame the entire religion for the actions of a few? I know you can't, just as you have. In fact I have gone out of my way to be absolutely crystal clear that I distinguish Moderate Muslims from radicalised Muslim extremists and have never blamed one for the other.

So you are down to straight out lying.

Why are you lying. Odeon? Why aren't you backing yourself instead?

AND

You say the FBI are monitoring a thousand (you started with 900 but whatever) potential groups or individuals.

Okay are you a liar?

Straight up. You just said that I stated "FBI are monitoring a thousand" That is YOUR words quoted above. That is what you said that I said.

Yup, and if we tack this on to the nearly 1000 US based Islamic extremist cases that are currently active investigations and the fact that both Omar Mateen and the San Bernadino whilst referred and investigated were ultimately dropped as active cases for investigation....yes they definitely need an overhaul......

Look at what is bolded above. DID I say the FBI is monitoring nearly 1000 US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases or that they are monitoring a thousand? Its one or the other.

Okay so how many exactly? Well Director Comey said 900 active US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases. So is 900 cases NEARLY 1000? YES. Is it ACTUALLY 1000? No.

So let's discuss why you just lied. Is your argument THAT weak you have to rely on lies and switch and bait attempts to give it legs? (Rhetorical question, obviously)

AND

How many nutcases with guns do you suppose they are they missing out on? Nationals who can buy the equipment they need legally and then kill gays, police officers or just some kids and teachers at a school? Remind me, how many gun-related homicides are there in the US every year?

900? 1000?

And none of the above means "ignore the radicalised nutcases". It means "don't be a stupid bigoted idiot, try something that can actually make a difference."

This is nothing to do with agreeing in principle with the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigration whilst the vetting system to distinguish between moderate Muslim and radicalised Muslim extremist is introduced.

Nothing AT ALL. You get that. There is nothing to suggest that the gun laws you believe may have a hope in Hell of getting introduced will stop radical Muslim extremists from committing these horribly destructive acts as seen in the examples I quoted already. 

[Al Swearegen]

This is what an emotional argument looks like.

Backstory and context is that I am saying that an idea or concept of Trump's to improve the vetting systems to record and investigate potential Muslim immigrants, (as the system is widely thought to be substandard), AND to place a temporary freeze on Muslim immigrants whilst the system and procedures is being upgraded.

Odeon is trying desperately to relate gun control to this idea so I can take a position that he can argue and take issue with rather than the argument that he called me bigoted over and cannot back.

I underlined the emotional appeal that is devoid, again, of rationality

How many nutcases with guns do you suppose they are they missing out on? Nationals who can buy the equipment they need legally and then kill gays, police officers or just some kids and teachers at a school? Remind me, how many gun-related homicides are there in the US every year?

900? 1000?

And none of the above means "ignore the radicalised nutcases". It means "don't be a stupid bigoted idiot, try something that can actually make a difference."

This is nothing to do with agreeing in principle with the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigration whilst the vetting system to distinguish between moderate Muslim and radicalised Muslim extremist is introduced.

Nothing AT ALL. You get that. There is nothing to suggest that the gun laws you believe may have a hope in Hell of getting introduced will stop radical Muslim extremists from committing these horribly destructive acts as seen in the examples I quoted already. 

IF it is basically a gun problem that may work....right?
OKay how did people die in the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. What about in London on July 7 2005? What about in Brussels on March 22, 2016? Take away legal access to guns, does it take away the ideology or the desire or intent? Does it reduce the damage that these extremists can do. What if they get a lorry instead of a gun and line up a crowd of people like has JUST bloody happened?

"Basically a gun problem". Bloody idiot.

"try something that can actually make a difference" The guns laws you wish to get implemented will make a difference? How? How would "I" "try that or make a difference?" What the fuck are you talking about now? Am I American? DO I vote? Do I have a NRA membership to revoke or something?

Problem with emotional arguments Odeon, you say a lot of dumb shit.

Am I American?
Do I vote?
Do I have an NRA membership to revoke?

try something that can actually make a difference[/i]

Sounds good, but it was just as emotional as calling me a bigot and is as rationally bankrupt. "Try what?" He doesn't know, he is just for team gun control and is wrapped up in emotion. Nothing he said had facts or rationality. The two positions aren't even related.

Idiotic and a little sad.