Odeon back yourself.

[Al Swearegen]

No, it's not since Al is certainly clever enough to know that what he says is loaded. I'd say that his behaviour later, when starting a thread about alternative meanings, says more than I ever could. Plus, of course, Butterflies' reaction both then and now.

But here is the thing: "ganging up" was never my phrase, it was just a phrase that I reacted against, just as Butterflies did, because it is a loaded phrase and there is no way in hell Al doesn't get that.

If anything, it's a case of semantics mattering, which is what I have been saying all along, so using his phrasing against me in this particular instance makes no sense to me.

If Al does understand this, then it's disappointing. If he doesn't, then possibly even more.

Evidently and by your own measure Al is a moron because he did not at any time (as I have repeated over and over) attach ANY (got that Odeon) negative connotation, nor was he using the the term "ganging up" in any loaded way or meaning.

So now either I am lying or I am not, which Odeon? Choose one.

That is as simple as this gets.

The thread was genuine. It was me genuinely mocking you, but also genuinely seeing how off track I was. It appears that I wasn't. BUT let's test the theory, here were some suggestion of better alternatives, you tell me what I "SHOULD HAVE" used:

"mobbing"
"dog piling"
"Lending support"
"Constructive Criticism"
"Forming a Posse"

Now you may have a problem with any of these suggestions too. But they may well have been used by the members offering them. Mind you THOSE members never pulled me up on MY phrase. So I want you to tell me which of these phrases YOU do not find appropriate or loaded?

Then tell me what phrase GIVEN the context I SHOULD have used?

Its fine to throw it out there and say I meant x in a  y way. But YOU need to back yourself. If I deny it am I lying? Yes or no? If I ought not have used that phrase then what phrase would have been suitable in the way that I meant it, and in describing what I was describing? As you have not told me I sought other opinions, were THEIR opinions equally wrong or right?

IF they are wrong too or if you find it difficult in finding an appropriate phrase then are YOU perhaps wrong? If you come up with a better phrase, is it JUST your opinion and does that make your a moral arbiter?

Recently in Australia, we had an idiot in some position of power they don't deserve pushing idiotic narratives.

Here is one:


There has been A LOT of pushback. Why? Because to most people "Hey guys" is NOT a loaded phrase. But to some it is. Some people saying "Hey guys" mean it to say "hey everyone" BUT there is a thought that some may mean it to be purely an allocation of masculine gender identity or whatever this idiot is pronouncing. So the speaker has to re-think THEIR position? NO!

If you are with me so far, you will probably agree that it matters in which way the person meant it and that there was more than one way they could have. You would likely agree, it may mean a person upset by the usage can complain or express confusion as to how they actually meant it, BUT THAT does not change the usage or intent.

They have found the use of "Hey girls" for women is almost equally rejected. Most people are not sensitive to it and most do not see it as problematic.

If I take this a step further, if I say "Hey gang" what am I implying about the make up of the people I am talking about? Not a lot?

When I said "ganging up" I meant it entirely in the sense that they were both collectively and together disagreeing/arguing/critiquing/criticising DFG. THAT is it. Together and at the same time.

There was NO moral judgement. There was nothing nasty. There as no implication of bullying - not on here.

So again I have asked a lot of very reasonable questions (many of which you seem to have sought to evade) and in context of all I have said, I would not mind some answers.

How many people are needed in order for a gang to be a gang? Out of interest.



"One Man Gang"

A gang of one? A gang of two? A gang of three? I'd probably say three or more.

This narrative of "You bought it up Al" is bullshit, so let's not go there.

I bought up what? I SAID she and Zegh were "ganging up". But I never made an issue of it, nor did I presume it as negative or partial. YOU made an issue of it and YOU bought it up. It became an issue because you made it an issue. Something you wanted me to explain and back and defend. It was ridiculous in exactly the same way that someone saying "Hey guys" would not have "bought up" anything NOR would they have anything to need to defend.

Now if they were nice people they could say "I am sorry you felt I meant guys to be a gendered term but I actually meant it to be gender neutral and not in the negative way you thought I may have meant it"

I similarly if I was nice could have gone "I am sorry, Odeon, that you felt I meant something bullying and nasty but I actually meant it to be collectively joining in together to critique/criticise/argue/dispute/whatever another member (as often happens on Intensitysquared without much alarm) and not in the negative way you thought I may have meant it"

I could have but I did not. Partially because you stating as a fact what I thought or "must have known" was not only incorrect but fucking stupid. If you suspected or had ANY issue, you could have asked me instead of tell me what I thought. You didn't. So I sure as hell do not feel bound to defend that.

[Al Swearegen]

Its interesting (in a kind of morbid way) watching you evolve your argument. You know your efforts to state that I was:
"dishonest" (in the very beginning)
then quickly not dishonest but rather "intellectually dishonest"
then "intellectually lazy"
then not intellectually dishonest but rather that I had a "blindspot"
then back to intellectual dishonesty
then reaffirming with Jack that you meant intellectual dishonesty as a form of intellectual laziness only
now you are back to dishonesty.

Now IF hypothetically, someone was to accuse someone of lying BUT from their own behaviour lie about what their actual position was for 3 months, what would that make THEM?

If you said "Liar", I would say that seemed logical. But if that person lying also was committing the same flaw as what they were accusing the other person of doing, there is a word for that too - "Hypocrite". The act of casting their own faults on another is called "projection".

Hypothetically speaking this would be something any reasonable decent human would seek to avoid doing.

Tomorrow night I am going to research through the posts to see if you have done this.

[MLA]

Tomorrow night I am going to research through the posts to see if you have done this.

Or you could return to your normal life again 

[Al Swearegen]

Its interesting (in a kind of morbid way) watching you evolve your argument. You know your efforts to state that I was:
"dishonest" (in the very beginning)
then quickly not dishonest but rather "intellectually dishonest"
then "intellectually lazy"
then not intellectually dishonest but rather that I had a "blindspot"
then back to intellectual dishonesty
then reaffirming with Jack that you meant intellectual dishonesty as a form of intellectual laziness only
now you are back to dishonesty.

Now IF hypothetically, someone was to accuse someone of lying BUT from their own behaviour lie about what their actual position was for 3 months, what would that make THEM?

If you said "Liar", I would say that seemed logical. But if that person lying also was committing the same flaw as what they were accusing the other person of doing, there is a word for that too - "Hypocrite". The act of casting their own faults on another is called "projection".

Hypothetically speaking this would be something any reasonable decent human would seek to avoid doing.

Tomorrow night I am going to research through the posts to see if you have done this.

"dishonest" (in the very beginning)

Again, mate, I don't care who started this. It doesn't matter after all this time, if it ever did. The fact is that you do this because you enjoy it, you both do, and pretending it's something else (which was my impression of the post I replied to) is just dishonest.

....

The problem with that one, though, is that you supposedly don't read his posts which means that either you're dishonest about calling him out on his bs or dishonest about not reading his posts. You don't get to do both, it's either you read what he is saying and think it's bs, or you don't read it and, well, post ninja cats but cannot possibly know if it's bs or not. Assume, yes, sure, but know, certainly not. This what you mean when saying I'm calling you dishonest at best and a liar at worst?

....

You have known me a long time, too, and so you should know by now that I don't call people dishonest or liars as a general rule. I do, however, question their motives when I feel it's warranted.

then quickly not dishonest but rather "intellectually dishonest"

That about right? And remember that what we are discussing here is not the true nature of Zegh's character, even though it's what you try to make it to be, we are discussing whether or not your assumptions, your not knowing (and admitting that you don't know), are an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

But I felt I needed to point out that no, I don't think you are a dishonest person, it is not your MO, I think you displayed intellectual dishonesty in this particular case, and that's why I reacted.

Don't you think this is intellectually dishonest?

then "intellectually lazy"

then not intellectually dishonest but rather that I had a "blindspot"

... Which could mean that it's not intellectual dishonesty now, but a blind spot.

then back to intellectual dishonesty

then reaffirming with Jack that you meant intellectual dishonesty as a form of intellectual laziness only

This is also from the link:

'Intellectual dishonesty is quite worthy of distinction from simple dishonesty. Of course, the term only makes sense in the context of an intellectual pursuit.'

So, if the two of you can cherry pick what you like best from that link, then I cherry pick that one, because the word intellectual is in there for a reason and it doesn't mean anything and everything cognitive.

A fair point. OTOH, one might argue that while the reason why all this happened in the first place should probably not be labelled as an "intellectual pursuit", it is entirely possible to discuss the mechanics of that reason using those terms.

But one might also argue that a) intellectual dishonesty is frequently a fancy and loaded term for intellectual laziness, b) most of us are guilty of it at one time or another to varying degrees, and c) this reply itself is an exercise best read with tongue firmly in cheek.

Then again, it's also possible to argue that very little on this board could ever be labelled as "an intellectual pursuit".

Every time a new term comes up in this topic, I try to understand how it applies. Sir Les has brought a new term to the front: Expectations. For some time read Odeon as say Sir Les was deceptive in some way by means of multiple terms of pretending, pretence, and dishonesty both intellectual and not, then later read Odeon was calling him intellectually lazy and I attributed that to him simply being personally annoyed, regardless if the term fits or not. The when Odeon finally made his point about Sir Les having it both ways by presenting a challenge while ignoring the response, just assumed Odeon saw it as out of character since that's not Sir Les' usual style.

now you are back to dishonesty.

::sigh::

Who cares? Well, for one, Butterflies did. She reacted the same way I did. She had the same interpretation of the term as I did. Words matter, Al, and there is no way you are not aware of the implications of "ganging up".

Why is it that if you use a term "in passing", we're supposed to ignore it since you claim you didn't "say it in a negative way" but you generate page upon page of callout posts if somebody else does it?

You might as well kill that newest callout of yours, btw. I am not going to respond to it, and nor am I interested in continuing this one.

Nothing like a little bit of consistency, huh?

Now IF hypothetically, someone was to accuse someone of lying BUT from their own behaviour lie about what their actual position was for 3 months, what would that make THEM?

If you said "Liar", I would say that seemed logical. But if that person lying also was committing the same flaw as what they were accusing the other person of doing, there is a word for that too - "Hypocrite". The act of casting their own faults on another is called "projection".

Hypothetically speaking this would be something any reasonable decent human would seek to avoid doing.

I'd normally ask someone to back themselves but in your case I won't for what ought to be obvious reasons.

[Al Swearegen]

Now the lies have started. Not that he will be able to back them either. From there, what? More lies and bigger lies. Sign of a poor argument and poor intellectual honesty

[odeon]

Still in a pissy mood, then?

[Al Swearegen]

Not yet.
I did not think you were responding to this call out? I will be charitable and call it a change of heart.
But seriously, you made a couple of lies, do you believe lying is key to good arguments or in debating alternate positions? Did you feel your position needing padding out with a lie or two? Do you think that imbues it with with strength and force given its obvious lack of substance?

[odeon]

Seriously, how many callouts are you planning on? Don't you think you have enough of them yet?

Yes, I think you are in a pissy mood. If you hadn't fared so badly in the first one you wouldn't have been so keen on the second (not counting threads, mind, just subject matters). What happened, of course, is that you fared badly in both, which obviously doesn't help your mood.

[Al Swearegen]

Seriously, how many callouts are you planning on? Don't you think you have enough of them yet?

Yes, I think you are in a pissy mood. If you hadn't fared so badly in the first one you wouldn't have been so keen on the second (not counting threads, mind, just subject matters). What happened, of course, is that you fared badly in both, which obviously doesn't help your mood.

That's a great line of bullshit you got there Odeon.
How many callouts?  I don't know, is there a limit? No? Then perhaps as many as I care to make?

I fared badly? I don't know if you believe this but the fact that you are reduced to lying certainly does not say much about how poor I am faring, but rather how badly you are.

I don't mind if you say I am in a pissy mood. I don't even care if you believe that. I just don't feel obliged to feed your ego by humouring the notion

Just so we are all on the level, the reason for me starting the last callout is because you said the you would refuse to answer one. I started another and you responded to it. Now you respond to both. It was also the reason for the title of the new callout.  But then you knew that because I already explained it to you, right?

[Al Swearegen]

Well,, we got the answer for the abundance of callouts.

Just so we are all on the level, the reason for me starting the last callout is because you said the you would refuse to answer one. I started another and you responded to it. Now you respond to both. It was also the reason for the title of the new callout.  But then you knew that because I already explained it to you, right?

Kind of Zegh in reverse. Zegh's tactics were to trigger Al whenever he could, in the hope Al made call-outs and then not to respond to them.

Odeon said he was not answering call-outs any more, so Al makes more to see if he can get reasons to call Odeon a liar. Seems to be the only acknowledged reason now.

Call-outs are serious business.

"Liar liar, pants on fire" something like that.

Hyke,

Out of interest, how did you manage to misinterpret this so very badly?
That explanation was me explaining why I made another callout. Was it "to call Odeon a liar if he responded"? No. No mention of that. I did not say he was a liar for doing so and nor have I inferred that he was a liar for doing so. What I DID say in that quoted piece is that I made another callout because he said he was not going to respond to one of them. My expectation therefore was that if I wanted a response, it was not going to be in the callout he said he was not going to respond to. Hence me starting a new one to get a response. All of what I said.

It had precisely NOTHING to do with me wanting to get reasons to call Odeon a liar. Did it?
It was to get a response that he wasn't going to give in the other callout. In fact him replying in a new callout would not make him a liar for not responding in the old callout that he had committed not to respond in.

So no idea where you got this conclusion. It did not even "seem" this way at all.

As for Odeon lying, YES he DID lie. Twice. Not in relation to responding or not responding to callouts. I even placed in my signature the specific posts where I show he had lied.


Lie #1

You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders:

Going to call you a liar outright and ask that you neither back track and:

No qualifying here

To show your inability to back this I will say I never said this and you can not show this. Now show me where I said anything about Muslim tourists visiting US on a visa and Muslim Americans coming back home from vacations.

Do not water down

You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders:

No backtracking and no qualifying. Why did you lie. Are you so unable to back yourself? Is your position so very weak that you have to lie? I am curious.

Lie#2

And now, in this latest marvel of yours, you are comparing Muslims to Ebola in a nice roundabout way. That's right, isn't it? It's what you are saying.

Me, I think it's bigoted as fuck......A hint, though: a hypothetical comparing Muslims to Ebola, subtle as it may be, is not the way to go.

Again you lie. No you were confused,  nor did you make a mistake or error in judgement, you lied, again.

Why do I say this? Because after spelling it out so that a child could get it that Good/moderate Muslims were described as both innocents and healthy in my analogy whilst Radicalised Muslims were the unhealthy ones with the disease. The disease itself "Ebola on steroids". The disease analogous to Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

It was not hard. So when you say "I am comparing Muslim to Ebola" you are lying. Straight up. No way you don't get it. At all. Am I comparing a toxic pervasive dangerous threat to a toxic pervasive dangerous threat? Yes. What is that threat? Radicalised Islamic Fundamentalism and this hypothetical disease that is like Ebola on steroids.

So at this stage it is not even defensible by you to say you misinterpreted. You desperately want  to lie about what I said in order to prop up yet another weak assertion. You either ought to take better positions in the first place or if you are forced to lie in order to pad your position, best give it up. Whatever point you were trying to make was obvious weak and likely petty.

Yet you missed this two and invented a reason for me accusing Odeon of lying?

It may well be a joke I fail to get.......I hope.

[odeon]

I didn't produce that awful Ebola hypothetical, you did. I can't help you if you don't see the problem but I'm fairly most people here do.

As for that other bit, how many times do I have to quote you? The first one was about you saying how rational you think Donald was re stopping the Muslims at the border, even though there could be some practicalities to solve. If you think it's me lying since you didn't say "I agree with Donald, ban them all" outright, you'd probably better reconsider because that's rather like saying that Hitler bloke had some great, rational ideas about cleansing his country but then denying any kind of bigotry.

I'm pretty sure that other one, where you wanted a "temporary freeze" until the FBI get their act together, included not just the Muslims but anyone coming from Muslim-dominated countries. Think I'm lying there too? I'm still interested in your proof, btw, but I guess I shouldn't be holding my breath.

Sorry but you suck at this.

[Al Swearegen]

I didn't produce that awful Ebola hypothetical, you did. I can't help you if you don't see the problem but I'm fairly most people here do.

As for that other bit, how many times do I have to quote you? The first one was about you saying how rational you think Donald was re stopping the Muslims at the border, even though there could be some practicalities to solve. If you think it's me lying since you didn't say "I agree with Donald, ban them all" outright, you'd probably better reconsider because that's rather like saying that Hitler bloke had some great, rational ideas about cleansing his country but then denying any kind of bigotry.

I'm pretty sure that other one, where you wanted a "temporary freeze" until the FBI get their act together, included not just the Muslims but anyone coming from Muslim-dominated countries. Think I'm lying there too? I'm still interested in your proof, btw, but I guess I shouldn't be holding my breath.

Sorry but you suck at this.

You really suck at this. If you are running to Hitler in trying to make a point about me being bigoted you are well into Goodwin's Law territory.

So I compared Ebola to something? To what. I DID talk of a disease like Ebola on Steroids. (ie a nasty deadly pervasive, deadly, threatening and infectious disease worse than Ebola). So I ACTUALLY (and honestly) compared Ebola to a hypothetical disease. That is all. Did I make ANY comparison of Ebola to Muslims? Any? No? Okay you lied.

Next we will see what I compared what to in the analogy. I compared good decent and moderate Muslims to healthy people (ie not infected with a horrible unnamed disease). Did I compare THESE Muslims to Ebola? No. So you lied. I compared radicalised Muslim Extremists to unhealthy people (ie infected with a horrible unnamed disease). Did I compare THESE Muslims to Ebola? No. So you lied.

So what did I compare Ebola to? A hypothetical nasty disease. What did I compare the nasty unnamed disease to? Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

So as I said, nothing wrong with the hypothetical. At all. Plenty wrong with you lying about what I said. But that is on you. I am absolutely sure that IF I DID say "All Muslims are as bad as Ebola" or even implied this most people on this site would not be impressed and IF I said this you would not have to lie now, right? I did not say this, nor infer it, nor in any way imply it and I spelled it out to you when you told me you were confused and so it is NOT that you don't get it or that you misinterpreted. No you are emotional and want to make an emotional argument devoid of truth to pad your weak claim. So you lie.

But then that was not the only place you are lying is it? Stop all Muslim from coming in at the border? Lie. Just outright lie. You know it is a lie. You say "But you said" and in knowing what I said you make no point for yourself. Regardless of whether Donald Trump was able to make his idea into a policy and enforce it, neither "preventing Muslim Immigrants" which is his main option or "preventing Muslims from coming from Muslim dominated countries" which was another option of his.

That is not ALL Muslims. In the first instance No Muslim Nationals are affected nor any Muslim tourists AND if you are sneaky enough as a moderate or radicalised Muslim you simply denounce your religious affiliation at check out and in you come (presumably). In the second instance you make sure that you come in via Europe instead of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran or other such countries. (All of these things are not exactly a plus for the idea, but good ideas sometimes have practical limitations).

So would either stop all Muslims? Was you saying that this is what I was saying, truth or lie? It can't be both. When you said I was "targeting ALL Muslims", were you telling the truth or lying?

Assuming you were lying, I suspect that the reason is that you have a greater amount of emotional investment than what you ought to have. If you go to is bigotry when you here any viewpoint that you do not agree with that involves Muslims, that is completely on you, not the person you wish to smear.

At the end of the day my emotional investment is not there. If Bernie comes up with a different solution that addresses what I see as obvious problems then I would support that. I do not care if the measures are harsh. In Australia we have signed up to the same treaty as US and we have detention centres for when boat people come sailing in. We isolate them for protracted periods of time until we make sure they are not infectious with third world diseases to infect the population, and to work out who they are and whether to deport them or introduce them into Australia. This idea of Donald Trump's is no better or worse in my opinion.

It is not bigoted to protect your citizens from harm or your borders from undesirables. Australians know it and Donald Trump seems to. As to whether the people on I2 agree or not, I think you may be surprised. Of course you may wish to misrepresent what I say or lie in order to try to bolster your position that doing nothing more than what is being done to maintain the US borders and vet immigrants is best, and that the Americans with 9/11 in their national consciousness and Orlando bodies barely in the ground, that they ought to fear furniture with the same or greater value to what they can radicalised Muslim extremists in America. Try it on and see how well the Americans on here swallow that kind of crap.

It is a good thing that they are not reading this and that you do not ask the question.

[odeon]

I didn't lie. You simply have trouble formulating your arguments and so you slip.

This is where you approve of what Trump has suggested:

Now Hillary Clinton believes that increasing 500% the amount of Syrian Muslims immigrants into America is a great idea. Trump thinks placing a freeze on immigration of Muslims and folks from Muslim dominant countries is the way to go.

I think Trump is being rational but I don't think his immigration policy would be easily implemented or adhered to. It is something though. .

Now, you got it slightly wrong, because he doesn't simply want to ban Muslim immigrants, he wants to ban every Muslim from entering the US. Read about it here. This is what you actually approve of, only you're like a lot of people and got your facts wrong. A bit embarrassing but par for the course.

And this is where you do that awkward Ebola on steroids comparison.

Not making any sense. Okay I will spell it out to you:

If a disease like Ebola on steroids that spreads quickly and is really deadly but also difficult to detect, starts in a country like.....I dunno....Iran.

So subtle. What you are saying is that they all look the same and so they should all be stopped until we learn how to tell them apart. 

It spreads like wildfire and is not contained before it crosses the border into nearby countries and population. People flee in terror of this horrid disease and try to escape to other countries as refugees. Many do not know they are infected.

Again, subtle. It's enough that they are Muslims, maybe they don't even know how radical they've become. Let's just stop them all until we learn how to do this.

Some do but are hiding their secret. Many are not infected yet. They all want to immigrate to the United States of America. Three options:

A) Bring them in at normal rates, business as usual - subpar screening.
B) Bring them in at accelerated rates - subpar screening
c) Acknowledge you have subpar screening and cannot detect all the sick ones and do not let any in until you can differentiate healthy from sick and sanction America from the diseased ones even if not allowing perfectly healthy ones in (as they may actually be sick but unable to be diagnosed) and that not doing so may place these innocents in harm's way.

C is not a nice option but it is not bigoted against Iranians.

(Oh yes swap ebola on steroids with Radical Islam and the point should make itself. If not I could make another analogy with Swedish Swimming Pools and the need for segregated swimming times.)

Your point has been made, yes. Stop them all because you are afraid and don't know how to tell them apart. No matter that the probabilities are low, lower than a lot of other things, say, shootings by nationals, and no matter that there is an easy solution to bring down those numbers, one that is supported by a majority of people.

You are effectively comparing Muslims to Ebola but trying to explain it away. Donald would be so proud if he knew.

What's sort of interesting is that if you actually missed that Donald wants to stop every Muslim, not just the immigrants, you are supporting a half measure and not the full Donald. Or is it that you think the terrorists only immigrate rather than travel to their targets on tourist visas?

Anyway, I am now done with this argument. It's not going anywhere and pretty much any thread here is more fun.

[Al Swearegen]

I didn't lie. You simply have trouble formulating your arguments and so you slip.

Yes you lied. You are trying to justify your lie. That "surprisingly" is not on me

This is where you approve of what Trump has suggested:

Now Hillary Clinton believes that increasing 500% the amount of Syrian Muslims immigrants into America is a great idea. Trump thinks placing a freeze on immigration of Muslims and folks from Muslim dominant countries is the way to go.

I think Trump is being rational but I don't think his immigration policy would be easily implemented or adhered to. It is something though. .

Now, you got it slightly wrong, because he doesn't simply want to ban Muslim immigrants, he wants to ban every Muslim from entering the US. Read about it here. This is what you actually approve of, only you're like a lot of people and got your facts wrong. A bit embarrassing but par for the course.

No. I had it right. This is what he had said in interviews. What I mentioned above is what I agreed in principle with. I did not get my facts wrong I agreed with what he said. Two very different things. What may or may not be embarrassing is, after me saying that I actually WANT to see him flesh this out and expand on it, to treat it as me getting it wrong once he does exactly that. I mean I would be a bit embarrassed but after you are shameless in your lying, I guess the downside is not that steep.

And this is where you do that awkward Ebola on steroids comparison.

It was not awkward and saying so does not make it so.

Not making any sense. Okay I will spell it out to you:

If a disease like Ebola on steroids that spreads quickly and is really deadly but also difficult to detect, starts in a country like.....I dunno....Iran.

So subtle. What you are saying is that they all look the same and so they should all be stopped until we learn how to tell them apart.

Take off your tinfoil, Odeon. An analogy is an analogy. It is not saying Muslims are some kind of plague. Who all look the same? People suffering with disease? The same in which way? In fact this is key to the analogy.
National safety at risk because there are a heap of people clamouring to get in and some of them are infectious and some are not. How do you tell who is infectious. Do they "look" sick? If so take out all those who appear sick and let in the reflect. Congrats some of those you did not let in were just a bit run down or had a cold and many you let in are sick. You have just spread a deadly disease to the United States.
Maybe when you said look the same you were not trying to implied that they "present the same" (ie sick people and well people may look similar or Moderate Muslims and radical extremist Muslim may present the same passports and answer the same questions in the same way not yielding their real views and with the same lack of records to back their claims) you were saying that they all are from the same ethnicity or race or whatever. I don't know but if you are trying the latter approach, don't bother.

As for me choosing Iran, why not? I wanted a smallish country surrounded by other countries. Let's be completely honest if I had of said any other country you would have had an issue with that country too. I would be a bigot if I said an African country or a South American country and no doubt if i had of said European country you would have found some way I was "subtle" there. No I was not subtle, it wasn't an issue, as much as you try to make it one.

It spreads like wildfire and is not contained before it crosses the border into nearby countries and population. People flee in terror of this horrid disease and try to escape to other countries as refugees. Many do not know they are infected.

Again, subtle. It's enough that they are Muslims, maybe they don't even know how radical they've become. Let's just stop them all until we learn how to do this.

No its not subtle. Radicalised Muslims DO know they are radical and they know their views, what an idiotic inference to make. No, I did not make it, you did.
This is stating in the analogy that the reasoning behind the leaving and the urgency and the crisis is honest. Infected people fleeing a plague is as crisis riddled as populations fleeing a war. The want to migrate is not suspect. You will know that most of the people fronting up have VERY genuine reasons to wanting to make somewhere else their home. Which one of these people IS a threat and how do you tell. THAT is the point.

Some do but are hiding their secret. Many are not infected yet. They all want to immigrate to the United States of America. Three options:

A) Bring them in at normal rates, business as usual - subpar screening.
B) Bring them in at accelerated rates - subpar screening
c) Acknowledge you have subpar screening and cannot detect all the sick ones and do not let any in until you can differentiate healthy from sick and sanction America from the diseased ones even if not allowing perfectly healthy ones in (as they may actually be sick but unable to be diagnosed) and that not doing so may place these innocents in harm's way.

C is not a nice option but it is not bigoted against Iranians.

(Oh yes swap ebola on steroids with Radical Islam and the point should make itself. If not I could make another analogy with Swedish Swimming Pools and the need for segregated swimming times.)

Your point has been made, yes. Stop them all because you are afraid and don't know how to tell them apart. No matter that the probabilities are low, lower than a lot of other things, say, shootings by nationals, and no matter that there is an easy solution to bring down those numbers, one that is supported by a majority of people.

Gun laws will not reduce that. You are simply a fool if you believe that. Are you a fool? No. Then what was the ACTUAL "easy solution".

Mateen as an example hated gays. He wanted to kill those gays in that nightclub. He chose his target. Radicalised Islamic hatred. Now take away legal access to that gun. What happens in this equation? Fire? Chemical attack? Or maybe another Boston bombing style event? Yes your "easy solution" would not have done shit, would it?

Out of interest what would the easy solution have done to the Boston Bombers? Nothing? Great conversation, great plan.

You are effectively comparing Muslims to Ebola but trying to explain it away. Donald would be so proud if he knew.

Where is the comparison? Again you repeating a lie is not masking it truth.
There is NO Ebola. In the analogy I did not even say there was Ebola (in which to compare to Muslims). I did say the disease was like Ebola on steroids. Which way was it like Ebola? In which ways was it different? what was it called? Where did it originate from? Was it a strain of Ebola?

No all you know is that it was NOT Ebola but was even worse.

Next part (not that you will get this because you are "playing dumb" - at least that is what I thought originally and now I am not so sure you are "playing")

The disease in this instance is analogous to "Radicalised Islamic extremism" (disease - ideology), What is also analogous Healthy people to Decent Moderate Muslims and Infected people -  Radicalised Muslims.

So either you are too stupid to get this rather blatant and obvious distinction or you are pretending to not get it. Either way nothing to do with me.

What's sort of interesting is that if you actually missed that Donald wants to stop every Muslim, not just the immigrants, you are supporting a half measure and not the full Donald. Or is it that you think the terrorists only immigrate rather than travel to their targets on tourist visas?

There is very little interesting in that. It is two positions and I am happy holding two different opinions on two different positions. I am happy to consider the basis for the next version of things that he brings to the table too. I will judge everything as his opinion evolves and he starts exploring and examining his idea.

Why would I imagine that terrorists only immigrate? Is that an actual question? Do you imagine that asking this might better make a point or pad your position? I already made these points but here is a much better point. If he is stopping all Muslims, what is stopping a Muslim guy coming in and saying he is a Christian or an Atheist or a Hindu?

By the way word is that though Donald Trump's position is all Muslims, it looks like it will be softening as he fleshes things out. I don't begrudge him that. Hard approach and then make a few concessions than a soft position and try to pad it up.

I think a concept needs to evolve. Interested in what he will come up with in the end. It will be different to what he said first (that I agreed with in principle) nor that he has now. It will be something a little less hard and fast.

Anyway, I am now done with this argument. It's not going anywhere and pretty much any thread here is more fun.

Well when you lie about me, you will generally get called out. Probably best not lying in the first place if you do not want the result of your lying. Its not getting anywhere because you are doubling down on dump and trying to justify lies. There is no justification and doubling down on stupid is really silly

[Al Swearegen]

Well at least you are not lying any more.