Moderate Muslims??

[Jack]

Pew research is a good polling site; it's a shame the links for US and Brittish polls lead to nothing.

[Al Swearegen]

I don't actually care if you are moved by it or not, I just like to use the right word. So yes, you've been all those things. Well done.

I do not much care if you like to use right words or wrong words. You use the wrong ones and your attempts to back and justify your choice of words is idiotic. Well done for failing so very badly. Your lack of embarrassment underlies an extreme level of lack of self-awareness or a deliberate and sustained effort at dishonesty. Yes, well done, Odeon.

[odeon]

I don't actually care if you are moved by it or not, I just like to use the right word. So yes, you've been all those things. Well done.

I do not much care if you like to use right words or wrong words. You use the wrong ones and your attempts to back and justify your choice of words is idiotic. Well done for failing so very badly. Your lack of embarrassment underlies an extreme level of lack of self-awareness or a deliberate and sustained effort at dishonesty. Yes, well done, Odeon.

You'd do well to take a long hard look at yourself. You need it. But I guess that's not going to happen, is it? It's not easy when there's so much to work through.

[Al Swearegen]

I don't actually care if you are moved by it or not, I just like to use the right word. So yes, you've been all those things. Well done.

I do not much care if you like to use right words or wrong words. You use the wrong ones and your attempts to back and justify your choice of words is idiotic. Well done for failing so very badly. Your lack of embarrassment underlies an extreme level of lack of self-awareness or a deliberate and sustained effort at dishonesty. Yes, well done, Odeon.

You'd do well to take a long hard look at yourself. You need it. But I guess that's not going to happen, is it? It's not easy when there's so much to work through.

You would do well to get down off your moral high horse and examine what you say and why you say it.
There is precisely two reasons that after having explained very specifically a number of times what is and is not my positions that you would choose to try a bait and switch and substitute positions I hold for  positions I don't and then try to argue against me for those positions.
The first option is that you are an idiot and the other is that after having it explained you know better but choose to be dishonest.
I don't much care which it is. Doesn't bother me. As long as you know that I know that it is one or the other. It cannot be ignorance after having it explained so many times.

Then of course is the outright lies.

So go moral pandering all you want but if anyone needs self-examination, its you. I am very self-aware. It says so much when your arguments devolve into bait and switch, lies and making arguments that have nothing to do with what I have been talking about. You can't even identify and back who I am intolerant of and how. You nominally say all Muslims but then can't show where I have said I am intolerant of all Muslims nor where I have collectively shown the disgust and intolerance that I have towards radical Muslim Extremists.

Its piss weak and ought to be beneath you. I think it is emotional problems. Midlife crisis perhaps. Perhaps you are just shit scared that facing these things rationally and looking at what I actually say rather than what you are freaking out about is too hard because you are IN Europe where these things are too close to home. "Rape Capital of the World"? That is something to live down. Maybe you are feeling guilty that you are feeling better about that than the troubles France is having with terrorist act after terrorist act. Perhaps that is why your mind wanders to falling furniture.

I don't really give a shit, its your issues to deal with not mine.

[odeon]

You make a convincing case for not giving a shit.

[Al Swearegen]

You make a convincing case for not giving a shit.

You on the other hand do not make a convincing case at all, which is the point precisely. You seem unable to back yourself and you are instead trying to bait and switch and outright lie instead. That speaks volumes. Why do you do this Odeon? Why is your argument so very weak that you cannot back yourself and lie and attempt to bait and switch instead?

[odeon]

Not interested in arguing anything with you, Al.

Early in this mess, I did point out--repeatedly--that I had backed up what I said but you refused to accept it. You refused to accept a difference in opinion, a standpoint also expressed by others, and it's gotten worse since, a lot worse. It's now gotten to be toxic and hateful, and while I am certainly not innocent bystander--I enjoy flaming as much the next person--I really should stop.

Do you honestly think a sensible discussion can take place between the two of us now?

[Al Swearegen]

Not interested in arguing anything with you, Al.

Early in this mess, I did point out--repeatedly--that I had backed up what I said but you refused to accept it. You refused to accept a difference in opinion, a standpoint also expressed by others, and it's gotten worse since, a lot worse. It's now gotten to be toxic and hateful, and while I am certainly not innocent bystander--I enjoy flaming as much the next person--I really should stop.

Do you honestly think a sensible discussion can take place between the two of us now?

I am not particularly concerned in what you are interested in arguing or not , Odeon.

A quick look at the first callout we had ought to disavow your notion of me refusing to ever accept a difference of opinion.

You wanted a reaction from me and called me intellectually dishonest and doubled down for all you are worth. I am not intellectually dishonest and your points were never well backed and there was plenty of bullshit during that time. Now you call me bigoted and a liar and whatever else. You can do that too. The result is the toxicity.

I would have been happy for it never to have began. I was not particularly interested in being prodded for a reaction. But prod you did and this is the reaction you have.

As for sensible conversation? I do make sensible conversation and you bait and switch and lie and then condescend to me and tell me I am illogical and irrational. It is AN option, but like the initial prodding for reaction, probably not the most constructive or helpful.

Odeon you can do whatever it is you wish to do. I have not stopped that, nor would I if I could. I will do as I choose too, as I do already.

[odeon]

/shrugs

Your choice. I have backed up everything I've said; it's your problem if you don't accept it. You still choose to misrepresent and lie about me, though, from me supposedly wanting "a reaction" to the "bait and switch and lie" mantra that you've resorted to lately. To be honest, I'm not even sure what you mean with that last bit and your, um, lengthy posts have done little to enlighten me in that respect.

You repeating the mantra ad nauseam won't make any it true, of course, but I suppose ironically it could be seen as baiting since enough of it might make me want to flame you again.

Your choice, like I said.

[Al Swearegen]

/shrugs

Your choice. I have backed up everything I've said; it's your problem if you don't accept it. You still choose to misrepresent and lie about me, though, from me supposedly wanting "a reaction" to the "bait and switch and lie" mantra that you've resorted to lately. To be honest, I'm not even sure what you mean with that last bit and your, um, lengthy posts have done little to enlighten me in that respect.

You repeating the mantra ad nauseam won't make any it true, of course, but I suppose ironically it could be seen as baiting since enough of it might make me want to flame you again.

Your choice, like I said.

"My choice?" When was it never my choice? Have you conferred some privileged position of determining my own agency? But consider you have agency too and you had a choice how you came at me and this is very much a follow on of those choices YOU made, like or not.

I have backed up everything I've said; it's your problem if you don't accept it. You still choose to misrepresent and lie about me, though, from me supposedly wanting "a reaction"

Of course I wanted a reaction, three months ago.....

"Supposedly"? Me saying this, is which one  - misrepresentation or lie? Be careful how you answer because I have it in your own words? No? You are not lying about lying are you because that would make you a hypocrite as well

to the "bait and switch and lie" mantra that you've resorted to lately.

This is not the first time you broached the position that whilst I had supported in principle the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigrants whilst they upgrade the vetting system, Donald Trump had a later position about banning all US Muslims from the border and had posted something to that effect on his site or campaign book or whatever. In fact you tried telling me I was wrong (I wasn't they were two separate positions and separate ideas).

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23727.30.html

Now me pointing this out VERY clearly to you that you are incorrect and with it goes you ability to claim ignorance as to what I was arguing and what you were trying to say I was arguing for or against

A couple of things you have still to understand (hence "misguided"):

Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did. Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.

Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy. But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.

I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.

Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did.

As I have mentioned this in several posts that this IS a position of his "to ban all Muslims" and is on his website as you pointed out HOWEVER (pay attention this time) his initial position before the reclarification (that he gave in speeches) was that he wished to place a freeze on Muslim Immigrants. I agreed in principle with the initial position. I have not vouched an opinion for this new position (as a result of him reclarifying an older position) but you seem to want me to agree or disavow it.

This is NOT "getting it wrong" is it? Only an idiot would suggest that, right?

Okay so you know the position I had and the one I did not and was not interested in supporting or defending. There is no inconsistency and it is spelled out so only an idiot would not "get it".

So....look at the date and look at the arguments.

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

So is THIS lie or misrepresentation?

Now you see the reason why some of these boring and repeated arguments hold water. Because they are genuine, truthful and consistent. I don't have to scramble, nor ignore hard arguments nor try to bait and switch more compelling positions.

That pretty much torpedoes this effort of you to play hard and fast with the concept of me misrepresenting or lying about yo bait and switching or fishing for a reaction.

So were YOU lying about what I was doing? I have all the evidence and in your own words from positions YOU have contradicted

This is also part of the reason you replying is NOT backing things up. The fact that you have gone to the effort of a reply does not equal you have backed yourself. Especially when you say something like you have hear which is provably untrue. In fact that is about as far from backing yourself as you can get.

The reason this does not "enlighten" you is that you are stewing in your emotional righteousness. You "feel" right. You feel morally and intellectually superior. Facts and logic have become secondary to your arguments. You:

* ignore the inconvenient
* lie to cover lies
* try to swap out or substitute hard to defend arguments that I support with easier arguments that I have not vouched for
* throw buzzwords like bigot without backing it
* try to sound like the "more reasonable person after having argued some unreasoned things
* even degrade yourself to try to condescend and patronise me after having no logical position to figure you had the higher ground in the argument.

You have not backed yourself. I do not care about your feelings or your emotional investment.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

[Gopher Gary]

Fuck you! That's why. 

[Al Swearegen]

Fuck you! That's why. 

Correct

[odeon]

I *am* morally and intellectually superior.

[Al Swearegen]

I *am* morally and intellectually superior.

There is part of your problem.

IF you were you would not make these mistakes and you would be able to back yourself. You have made a lot of pretty embarrassing mistakes (including lying and bait and switch tactics) and are not able to back yourself.

It is a conundrum. I suspect that part of the reason this is a problem is that you have misjudged your moral and intellectual superiority and are too ready to dismiss what you ought to be taking notice of to avoid appearing like an idiot and a liar.

I am all for confidence but blind faith....not so much