|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 30 2017 07:08 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:02 FiWiFaKi wrote:
What political capital, I'm confused?
Literally all it takes is a person voting for someone who is a bit more pro-Muslim than another person, no political capital needed at all. Then a party might see that if it has a Muslim person in it's cabinet, then they get a bit more votes, and goes from there. This shift is so subtle, but it's clear as day. This is a slippery-slope argument of the highest caliber. To which my only response can be "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it". Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:02 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Look, we don't treat citizen of our country the same as we treat citizen of other countries. If someone in my country has some pedophile thoughts, we don't lock him up, because he didn't act on them (though if he's seen as a danger to society, we would put him on a watch list, and potentially even detain him, much like suspected terrorists).
But you're choosing who you are going to bring in, you're going to pick the best you can, and you're obviously not going to bring the guy who is having pedophile thoughts (assuming you know 100%), even though he's done nothing wrong. It's a game of statistics... We try not to play a game of statistics with our own people, because it leads to discrimination of individual people (not hiring a black person because they're more likely to steal, even though this specific black guy would never do it). But with immigrants you want to play this game of statistics, and pick who is likely to be the best.
And hence even though you have no reason to assume this specific person will do something bad, you have evidence and reasoning to suggest why you prefer group x over group y. This isn't what's happening though. If religion were a single criteria in a long checklist of things that were being evaluated when we look at potential immigrants, that would be one thing. I could see that being reasonable, with other factors such as presumed benefit to society based on education, career history, etc. taken into account. But in this case, a predominantly Muslim country-of-origin from a particular list has become automatically disqualifying, regardless of all possible mitigating factors, which I don't think is defensible. A nominally-Muslim doctor who does not actively practice his faith is equally disqualified from entering the US as an unemployed devout Muslim who strongly believes in the enactment of Sharia law. The Muslim ban as implemented ascribes no value to all other possible good that people could bring to American society. It labels people purely by their religion and/or country of origin.
You didn't do your argument much good with that last post Yango.
Now that you said you'd be okay with giving being a Muslim some weight, now we just have it assign it a number. And how much is that, how do we decide that?
Do we bring a trades person from Portugal, middle class family, slight catholic background, or a very religious business man from Iraq who's ready to invest 2 million in the US? Hard to assign values to it, and it's tough, because we only have so much information. Sure, we know their occupation, their education, maybe some family history? But there's a lot we don't know, and do we assume the best, do we assume the worst, do we assume the average? It just gets really messy, and your exact statement of it should bear some weight is what leads us to where we are now.
The stuff like Mo Farah being unable to come home is quickly going to be fixed by the law to give permission to athletes, celebrities, political figures, etc... Much like how esports visas work in our world so that the players can attend international events (usually lol).
|
Can people who write claims/statements like "50% of Mulims that live in foreign countries would like Sharia law enacted there" include a source into their posts?
It's like really tedious to look that up when trying to dispute it and as the argument wasn't introduced by myself I don't like doing the work searching for the source when it's not even my argument.
|
On January 30 2017 03:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 02:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 02:38 ChristianS wrote:
Priebus says it's not a fuckup and they're not apologizing for anything, but also says it won't affect green card holders going forward. They should apologize for including green card holders. They shouldn't apologize for continuing this ban. These are the same ideologies that Trump campaigned on, and they were elected for it. One thing to keep in mind is that this executive order can't be viewed in a vacuum. Its seems fairly clear that the inclusion of green card holders was a deliberately provocative act. The Trump Administration is setting the table for some big changes to America's immigration policy. I strongly suspect that this executive order is just the first of a coming of series of "outrages" that Trump will be deliberately triggering on the Left. Wait, so if I understand you correctly: they're not just implementing policies the left thinks is bad; they're intentionally implementing policies even they think are bad just to piss off the left. Why? What's the end goal to pissing off liberals? They usually get plenty pissed off on their own, don't they?
Trump sees his more extremist proclamations as tools to get what he wants policy-wise. He sets the table with an extreme position and bargains back from there. This is a well-documented behavior of his. I think that he's setting the table for immigration reform with this executive order.
One of my frustrations with your arguments in this thread is that you're such a political operative about everything. You only contribute on subjects that you think will be favorable to you, and when you do everything seems so calculated, like you would never just say what you think because you think it.
This results in conversations like:
"Wtf is this new Trump policy? It's excluding a bunch of long-time legal American residents from coming back to the country, just because they picked a bad time to go on vacation, and it's pissing everybody off."
"You just don't get it, this is all part of Trump's master plan."
"To piss everybody off?"
"Exactly."
"...?"
Like really, you have no comment on the significant human cost of this policy, you just want to say something esoteric about Trump's master plan so you can say we're all playing into his hands by criticizing his shitty policies?
I already acknowledged the human cost of Trump's policy. I just don't find that conversation or the dwelling on it to be particularly interesting. There is a cost to everything. The real question is what we're getting in exchange.
And I find it curious that anyone would find my more clinical posts to be objectionable. From my experience I catch far less flak (if any) from those posts than when I say what I actually substantively think on anything.
|
This is going to get insane I do believe
|
On January 30 2017 03:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 30 2017 00:41 Doodsmack wrote:
Lol is this guy still getting hacked?
Did Sean Spicer seriously and sincerely retweet The Onion ripping on him? He clearly didn't watch the satirical video... The Onion: "Sean Spicer's job is to provide misinformation." Sean Spicer: "The Onion is correct!" Neither of you sees the joke here?
I don't think it's a joke, especially with "period!" being there.
|
|
|
On January 30 2017 07:20 FiWiFaKi wrote:
You didn't do your argument much good with that last post Yango.
I'm trying to be empathetic toward your apparent fear of other cultures because it's one that I don't personally feel and is very difficult for me to understand.
From my personal perspective, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if 20 years from now, Muslim culture is a mainstream part of American society. My parents were immigrants, and I grew up in a different culture from my parents, and I take it as given that my children will grow up in a different culture from me, so I don't see anything sacred about "American culture" that is worth defending at all costs. Would I prefer it if the culture they grow up in is similar to what I experienced? Of course. But not the extent that I feel particularly strongly about it. If that culture becomes in some way distasteful to me personally, I'll figure that shit out when it happens.
On January 30 2017 07:20 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Now that you said you'd be okay with giving being a Muslim some weight, now we just have it assign it a number. And how much is that, how do we decide that?
Do we bring a trades person from Portugal, middle class family, slight catholic background, or a very religious business man from Iraq who's ready to invest 2 million in the US? Hard to assign values to it, and it's tough, because we only have so much information. Sure, we know their occupation, their education, maybe some family history? But there's a lot we don't know, and do we assume the best, do we assume the worst, do we assume the average? It just gets really messy, and your exact statement of it should bear some weight is what leads us to where we are now.
The answer is it depends. We give some guidelines, we let immigration officials work out the details, and if we have problems, we fix them. You know, what we were already doing.
A total ban of travel to the US from a specific list of countries solves no problems. It removes the ability to work out these difficult problems by making a particular factor automatically disqualifying. That's not a rational approach to the problem that you're trying to solve.
|
On January 30 2017 07:20 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:08 TheYango wrote:On January 30 2017 07:02 FiWiFaKi wrote:
What political capital, I'm confused?
Literally all it takes is a person voting for someone who is a bit more pro-Muslim than another person, no political capital needed at all. Then a party might see that if it has a Muslim person in it's cabinet, then they get a bit more votes, and goes from there. This shift is so subtle, but it's clear as day. This is a slippery-slope argument of the highest caliber. To which my only response can be "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it". On January 30 2017 07:02 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Look, we don't treat citizen of our country the same as we treat citizen of other countries. If someone in my country has some pedophile thoughts, we don't lock him up, because he didn't act on them (though if he's seen as a danger to society, we would put him on a watch list, and potentially even detain him, much like suspected terrorists).
But you're choosing who you are going to bring in, you're going to pick the best you can, and you're obviously not going to bring the guy who is having pedophile thoughts (assuming you know 100%), even though he's done nothing wrong. It's a game of statistics... We try not to play a game of statistics with our own people, because it leads to discrimination of individual people (not hiring a black person because they're more likely to steal, even though this specific black guy would never do it). But with immigrants you want to play this game of statistics, and pick who is likely to be the best.
And hence even though you have no reason to assume this specific person will do something bad, you have evidence and reasoning to suggest why you prefer group x over group y. This isn't what's happening though. If religion were a single criteria in a long checklist of things that were being evaluated when we look at potential immigrants, that would be one thing. I could see that being reasonable, with other factors such as presumed benefit to society based on education, career history, etc. taken into account. But in this case, a predominantly Muslim country-of-origin from a particular list has become automatically disqualifying, regardless of all possible mitigating factors, which I don't think is defensible. A nominally-Muslim doctor who does not actively practice his faith is equally disqualified from entering the US as an unemployed devout Muslim who strongly believes in the enactment of Sharia law. The Muslim ban as implemented ascribes no value to all other possible good that people could bring to American society. It labels people purely by their religion and/or country of origin. You didn't do your argument much good with that last post Yango. Now that you said you'd be okay with giving being a Muslim some weight, now we just have it assign it a number. And how much is that, how do we decide that? Do we bring a trades person from Portugal, middle class family, slight catholic background, or a very religious business man from Iraq who's ready to invest 2 million in the US? Hard to assign values to it, and it's tough, because we only have so much information. Sure, we know their occupation, their education, maybe some family history? But there's a lot we don't know, and do we assume the best, do we assume the worst, do we assume the average? It just gets really messy, and your exact statement of it should bear some weight is what leads us to where we are now. The stuff like Mo Farah being unable to come home is quickly going to be fixed by the law to give permission to athletes, celebrities, political figures, etc... Much like how esports visas work in our world so that the players can attend international events (usually lol).
The entire point of the anti-discrimination is that we don't value people differently because of their race, nationality, religion, sex, whatever other category, but based on their individual merit. That's the point you're entirely missing. You're still discriminating against the group when you try to generalize people based on these groups.
You can discriminate based on values and merit because those are individual properties, but when you discriminate based on race, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation, similar categories, you perceive that people in those groups have whatever values you believe they have, which is the whole point of these movements - to stop thinking that because it's untrue.
I would also like to say that your perspective on this is appalling to me, especially as a Canadian.
|
This is a fuckup of execution based on vagueness and lack of direction. Hopefully it's an excusable error rather than just people inside the WH not knowing what they're doing. It could just be that they acted too quickly in their desire to get the PR out.
|
well i'll be, looking up the clinical systems there indeed isn't a xenophobia. seems rather surprising givne how in a few cases it should be clinically identifiable. though there's a non-mainstream view that argues that in certain extreme cases it should qualify as a phobia.
|
On January 30 2017 07:35 Doodsmack wrote:This is a fuckup of execution based on vagueness and lack of direction. Hopefully it's an excusable error rather than just people inside the WH not knowing what they're doing. It could just be that they acted too quickly in their desire to get the PR out.
At best its staggering incompetence, at worst we've got people actively defying the court. Neither of which bode well. 9 days....9 and this shit is already absolute insanity man.
|
On January 30 2017 07:35 Doodsmack wrote:This is a fuckup of execution based on vagueness and lack of direction. Hopefully it's an excusable error rather than just people inside the WH not knowing what they're doing. It could just be that they acted too quickly in their desire to get the PR out.
The fact that other departments were never consulted on wording/pitfalls leads me to believe its inexperience/incompetent people thinking they know everything and don't have to ask for help or a second opinion. Its a very dangerous combination and I hope this wakes them up.
I have my doubts it will.
On January 30 2017 07:41 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:35 Doodsmack wrote:This is a fuckup of execution based on vagueness and lack of direction. Hopefully it's an excusable error rather than just people inside the WH not knowing what they're doing. It could just be that they acted too quickly in their desire to get the PR out. At best its staggering incompetence, at worst we've got people actively defying the court. Neither of which bode well. 9 days....9 and this shit is already absolute insanity man.
"not technically detained", "not technically on US ground". That sounds like 100% actively defying the court.
The real question is on who's orders are they blocking the order.
|
On January 30 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On January 30 2017 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 02:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 02:38 ChristianS wrote:
Priebus says it's not a fuckup and they're not apologizing for anything, but also says it won't affect green card holders going forward. They should apologize for including green card holders. They shouldn't apologize for continuing this ban. These are the same ideologies that Trump campaigned on, and they were elected for it. One thing to keep in mind is that this executive order can't be viewed in a vacuum. Its seems fairly clear that the inclusion of green card holders was a deliberately provocative act. The Trump Administration is setting the table for some big changes to America's immigration policy. I strongly suspect that this executive order is just the first of a coming of series of "outrages" that Trump will be deliberately triggering on the Left. Wait, so if I understand you correctly: they're not just implementing policies the left thinks is bad; they're intentionally implementing policies even they think are bad just to piss off the left. Why? What's the end goal to pissing off liberals? They usually get plenty pissed off on their own, don't they? Trump sees his more extremist proclamations as tools to get what he wants policy-wise. He sets the table with an extreme position and bargains back from there. This is a well-documented behavior of his. I think that he's setting the table for immigration reform with this executive order.
So he puts something he wants in with EO, along with a total policy turd. Then in negotiations he tries to extract concessions from Democrats by offering to take away the turd. Might work if they're magnanimous enough to make concessions for the good of the country. But what if they don't play ball, leave the turd in place and make him own it? It'll be hard to blame Dems or the media for his own EO.
Show nested quote +One of my frustrations with your arguments in this thread is that you're such a political operative about everything. You only contribute on subjects that you think will be favorable to you, and when you do everything seems so calculated, like you would never just say what you think because you think it.
This results in conversations like:
"Wtf is this new Trump policy? It's excluding a bunch of long-time legal American residents from coming back to the country, just because they picked a bad time to go on vacation, and it's pissing everybody off."
"You just don't get it, this is all part of Trump's master plan."
"To piss everybody off?"
"Exactly."
"...?"
Like really, you have no comment on the significant human cost of this policy, you just want to say something esoteric about Trump's master plan so you can say we're all playing into his hands by criticizing his shitty policies? I already acknowledged the human cost of Trump's policy. I just don't find that conversation or the dwelling on it to be particularly interesting. There is a cost to everything. The real question is what we're getting in exchange. And I find it curious that anyone would find my more clinical posts to be objectionable. From my experience I catch far less flak (if any) from those posts than when I say what I actually substantively think on anything.
I mean if what you think is objectionable people might object to it, but at least it wouldn't feel disingenuous. If TL politics discussion actually mattered I'd think you were some RNC operative trying to spin the news cycle. Since it doesn't, I don't know what you're trying for.
You haven't talked about what we're getting in exchange either, really, unless I missed it. We're criticizing an immigration ban so broad it's blocking everyone from Iraqi fighters who helped The US in the war to Eddie Izzard. Whether they knew beforehand how overbroad the order would be or not, they're not backing down. Antagonizing Dems is one thing, but this is pissing off Republicans too.
On an unrelated note, I want to believe you're smart enough not to takr Scott Adams' Persuasion Gospel at face value, but you really seem to be on that train.
|
On January 30 2017 07:31 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:20 FiWiFaKi wrote:
You didn't do your argument much good with that last post Yango. I'm trying to be empathetic toward your apparent fear of other cultures because it's one that I don't personally feel and is very difficult for me to understand. From my personal perspective, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if 20 years from now, Muslim culture is a mainstream part of American society. My parents were immigrants, and I grew up in a different culture from my parents, and I take it as given that my children will grow up in a different culture from me, so I don't see anything sacred about "American culture" that is worth defending at all costs. Would I prefer it if the culture they grow up in is similar to what I experienced? Of course. But not the extent that I feel particularly strongly about it. If that culture becomes in some way distasteful to me personally, I'll figure that shit out when it happens. Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:20 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Now that you said you'd be okay with giving being a Muslim some weight, now we just have it assign it a number. And how much is that, how do we decide that?
Do we bring a trades person from Portugal, middle class family, slight catholic background, or a very religious business man from Iraq who's ready to invest 2 million in the US? Hard to assign values to it, and it's tough, because we only have so much information. Sure, we know their occupation, their education, maybe some family history? But there's a lot we don't know, and do we assume the best, do we assume the worst, do we assume the average? It just gets really messy, and your exact statement of it should bear some weight is what leads us to where we are now.
The answer is it depends. We give some guidelines, we let immigration officials work out the details, and if we have problems, we fix them. You know, what we were already doing. A total ban of travel to the US from a specific list of countries solves no problems. It removes the ability to work out these difficult problems by making a particular factor automatically disqualifying. That's not a rational approach to the problem that you're trying to solve.
Hmm, the first part of your post is interesting to me.
In much the same way I'd like to save the polar bears even though they don't bring direct benefit to me, I have a way I picture the world, and I'd like to help shape it that that "utopia" if you will. Not so much a passerby of the Earth, but a sculptor that leaves his mark. It is selfish, but I wasn't aware that this is some uncommon sentiment. I myself am an immigrant to Canada, but that doesn't mean I can't have some anti-immigrant thoughts. Surely you wouldn't like to have woman's rights be abolished after you die, I wouldn't like certain powers that don't agree with my mental framework to have lots of power over all the surroundings that I have been a part of all my life.
I think a big reason why blocking out a certain group is all or nothing is because it grows resentment, and as long as you don't fully eliminate them, you don't defeat them. If you are going to be an asshole to Muslim people, like we are being, yet still allow their percentage of the population numbers rise, then you are giving them more power over time, while they hate you more than ever. Doesn't seem like a good formula, hence why it's one extreme or another.
It was abolish slavery, or don't. There's no middle line of oh "if you're under 5'8 you're going to be a slave, or if your skin hue is over this number you'll be a slave". It's all or nothing.
|
On January 30 2017 07:41 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:35 Doodsmack wrote:This is a fuckup of execution based on vagueness and lack of direction. Hopefully it's an excusable error rather than just people inside the WH not knowing what they're doing. It could just be that they acted too quickly in their desire to get the PR out. At best its staggering incompetence, at worst we've got people actively defying the court. Neither of which bode well. 9 days....9 and this shit is already absolute insanity man.
plesae calm down. we need more calm. do'nt get so worked up already, there's a lot of tim for trump to do far worse, don't run out of adjectives by using up the big ones early.
this is not just to you ofc but to everyone; it's important to just generically call for calm.
|
On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote:On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical. This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation.
I unequivocally disagree.
This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims.
In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with.
No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same.
|
What is Trump referring to with his World War 3 tweet to McCain and Lindsey?
edit:
What did these two possibly do to warrant such an allegation?
The tweet and the joint statement:
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/1/statement-by-senators-mccain-graham-on-executive-order-on-immigrationWashington, D.C. – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released the following statement today on the President’s executive order on immigration: “Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation. “It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security. “Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children. “Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”
|
|
|
On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote:On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical. This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals.
There's radicals, then there's sympathizers, then there's the middle group that have backwards beliefs that won't integrate well into our society (stoning for adultery, believe homosexuals/apostates to be executed), then theres the remaining normal ones who probably don't care for these beliefs and could integrate into western society. So how do we seperate these? How do we just prevent people from lying and abusing a system we put in place to get the ones we want and stop the ones we don't want?
I'm an immigrant btw, naturalized, so I fully understand the immigrant struggle.
|
Thank you for supporting that information. I'm a regular lurker since mid december so forgive me for not being on top of that.
Nevertheless I wasn't picking on that one point specifically. Providing the thread with ones sources is not abided by ever so often and that really buggs me. If it were a general rule that you'd have to solidiy your claims I'd hope the amount of rage-induced, opinionated posts we have every couple of pages would subside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
