Trump wants to force all Muslims to register with a database

[buckshot24]

IIRC the percentage of terrorists claiming to be Muslim compared to the total Muslim population is something like 0.000625%. You support banning approximately a quarter of the world's population from entry based on the actions of that percentage. If you were deemed as being a 0.000625% risk because you're say white, or Christian, or American for example and so were banned from doing something, would you think that's a fair assessment?

First, we don't need to let anybody into our country. Secondly I'm already in our country and a citizen. We're talking about potential immigrants, not citizens. Third, I don't think any of this is "fair". I don't think it is fair to strip search a Grandma from Wisconsin because some Muslims hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings either.

The underlying question here is why should we let anybody in? Is there an obligation to let everybody in who wants to come? I don't think so.

It also isn't just about those who actually blow themselves up. It is about large portions of populations that believe it is sometimes justified to kill apostates and many other terrible things.

 

[jackstar7]

It isn't racism! The term is inappropriate. I'm not redefining anything, anybody who calls it racism is.

Well, as I told you, I know it's your religious bigotry, but I thought a Muslim might offer a worthwhile perspective on the value of your pedantry.

 

[mikeymikec]

First, we don't need to let anybody into our country.

This is about as relevant as a racist shopkeeper saying that he doesn't need to let anyone in his shop.

Secondly I'm already in our country and a citizen.

Reading comprehension fail.

We're talking about potential immigrants, not citizens.

Congratulations for a basic grasp of the topic, but this is a point apropos of nothing at all.

Third, I don't think any of this is "fair".

That's certainly a way to avoiding giving any sort of direct response to my question.

I don't think it is fair to strip search a Grandma from Wisconsin because some Muslims hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings either.

More irrelevance.

The underlying question here is why should we let anybody in? Is there an obligation to let everybody in who wants to come? I don't think so.

Irrelevant. And if you want some basic lessons on why immigration is a thing in our globalised society, you can find some posts of mine on this topic earlier in the thread.

It also isn't just about those who actually blow themselves up. It is about large portions of populations that believe it is sometimes justified to kill apostates and many other terrible things.

And? You seem to have a habit of continually making points that lead to no conclusion.

But we're going around in circles here. Your original point was "racism not found". You deny that there's anything wrong with the idea whatsoever, so overall this seems like trying to discuss the finer points of evolutionary biology to someone who claims that the theory of evolution is not even vaguely sound.

 

[buckshot24]

Well, as I told you, I know it's your religious bigotry, but I thought a Muslim might offer a worthwhile perspective on the value of your pedantry.

I made the comment then get huge pushback when I'm 100% correct. Call it what it actually is and quit cheapening the term "racism".

 

[buckshot24]

This is about as relevant as a racist shopkeeper saying that he doesn't need to let anyone in his shop.



Reading comprehension fail.



Congratulations for a basic grasp of the topic, but this is a point apropos of nothing at all.



That's a good way of avoiding giving an opinion.



More irrelevance.



Irrelevant.



And? You seem to have a habit of continually making points that lead to no conclusion.

But we're going around in circles here. Your original point was "racism not found". You deny that there's anything wrong with the idea whatsoever, so overall this seems like trying to discuss the finer points of evolutionary biology to someone who claims that the theory of evolution is not even vaguely sound.

I guess you're done?

 

[buckshot24]

Mike,

You're thinking I am trying to prove you wrong when all I'm doing is trying to explain to you what I'm thinking on this. None of my points are "irrelevant" to that end.

 

[jackstar7]

I made the comment then get huge pushback when I'm 100% correct. Call it what it actually is and quit cheapening the term "racism".

To what worthwhile end? Why protect a word over people? Is it to be more permissive of your bigotry perhaps?

Sorry that people misuse racism where bigotry (like your own) would fit and then be 100% correct. The message is still understood.

 

[buckshot24]

To what worthwhile end? Why protect a word over people? Is it to be more permissive of your bigotry perhaps?

Sorry that people misuse racism where bigotry (like your own) would fit and then be 100% correct. The message is still understood.

I'm not protecting a word I just made a 3 word post and people can't take correction. I'm not the one harping on this. Instead of crapping on me maybe you should just acknowledge that racism is the wrong word and move forward? Maybe the only reason I brought it up is because it is the wrong word? Is that possible?

I don't think bigotry is any better than racism so that is a ridiculous Alex Jones level theory you've got there. It isn't bigotry to have different immigration policies toward different areas of the world. And I'm not bigoted toward Muslims, I just recognize that their book condones violence against the unbeliever and you'd be an idiot to not recognize that.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm not protecting a word I just made a 3 word post and people can't take correction. I'm not the one harping on this. Instead of crapping on me maybe you should just acknowledge that racism is the wrong word and move forward? Maybe the only reason I brought it up is because it is the wrong word? Is that possible?

I don't think bigotry is any better than racism so that is a ridiculous Alex Jones level theory you've got there. It isn't bigotry to have different immigration policies toward different areas of the world. And I'm not bigoted toward Muslims, I just recognize that their book condones violence against the unbeliever and you'd be an idiot to not recognize that.

Hi, I'm self-awareness. It's clear we've never met.

I must be shunned lest your bigotry become irreconcilable with your other beliefs.

Hope we get to know each other one day.


--------------------------------------------

I say that because you want to claim you're not bigoted, while actively pursuing bigoted actions. You don't get to have that. Sorry.

 

[buckshot24]

Hi, I'm self-awareness. It's clear we've never met.

I must be shunned lest your bigotry become irreconcilable with your other beliefs.

Hope we get to know each other one day.


--------------------------------------------

I say that because you want to claim you're not bigoted, while actively pursuing bigoted actions. You don't get to have that. Sorry.

You saying something is bigoted doesn't make it so. What am I advocating, you probably have no idea.

 

[jackstar7]

You saying something is bigoted doesn't make it so. What am I advocating, you probably have no idea.

You already confirmed it for me earlier in the thread. You are advocating religious bigotry.

Feel free to attempt to distance yourself from it, or even better take it back and change your position whole-cloth and stop being a bigot in this regard.

 

[buckshot24]

You already confirmed it for me earlier in the thread. You are advocating religious bigotry.

Feel free to attempt to distance yourself from it, or even better take it back and change your position whole-cloth and stop being a bigot in this regard.

Remember, you calling something bigotry doesn't make it so.

 

[greatnoob]

First, we don't need to let anybody into our country. We're talking about potential immigrants, not citizens.

Since the US is a part of the UN, you do realise it is an obligation to grant asylum to the same civilians you morons displaced.
Give Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a read, maybe you'll actually learn something and be able to source legitimate information instead of your baseless, xenophobic and uneducated drivel, idiot.

Remember, you calling something bigotry doesn't make it so.

Speaking out of your ass, not providing proof for your stupid claims and claiming you are not for X then supporting X straight after, on the other hand, does show you are a bigot... and also an absolute idiot.

 

[brycejones]

Since the US is a part of the UN, you do realise it is an obligation to grant asylum to the same civilians you morons displaced.
Give Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a read, maybe you'll actually learn something and be able to source legitimate information instead of your baseless, xenophobic and uneducated drivel, idiot.



Speaking out of your ass, not providing proof for your stupid claims and claiming you are not for X then supporting X straight after on the other hand does show you are a bigot... and also an absolute idiot.

It's par for the course with buckshat, he is a very amoral individual.

 

[buckshot24]

Since the US is a part of the UN, you do realise it is an obligation to grant asylum to the same civilians you morons displaced.
Give Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a read, maybe you'll actually learn something and be able to source legitimate information instead of your baseless, xenophobic and uneducated drivel, idiot.

First, I don't know why you need to be so aggressive. Secondly this doesn't cover immigrants these are refugees being discussed in Article 14, so you're just wrong and talking about apples and oranges while being so aggressive and insulting to me at the same time. I'll take your apology any time. Fourthly, there isn't anybody advocating a ban on Muslims in this thread.

Here it is for everybody else.

"(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Speaking out of your ass, not providing proof for your stupid claims and claiming you are not for X then supporting X straight after on the other hand does show you are a bigot... and also an absolute idiot.

Sorry that you've been triggered. Nothing I've said is wrong, factually. Name calling only makes you look bad and probably evidence that you have anger issues. I have only been talking about immigrants, not refugees.

You thinking X is bigoted doesn't make it so.

 

[jackstar7]

Remember, you calling something bigotry doesn't make it so.

Absolutely, you wanting to actively prejudge people based on their religion and treat them differently is bigotry.

I'll continue to hope that you rescind this active bigotry and find a better way to be an American.

From Vocabulary.com:
bigotry
If a person is intolerant of other ideas, races, or religions, we call that person a bigot. The intolerance expressed by that bigot is called bigotry. Bigotry is ugly.

There are different types of bigotry — like religious bigotry or racist bigotry.

 

[greatnoob]

First, I don't know why you need to be so aggressive. Secondly this doesn't cover immigrants these are refugees being discussed in Article 14, so you're just wrong and talking about apples and oranges while being so aggressive and insulting to me at the same time. I'll take your apology any time. Fourthly, there isn't anybody advocating a ban on Muslims in this thread.

It is very clear, the only Muslims coming into the US are refugees, specifically Syrian refugees. It's retards like you who prejudge them, calling them 'economic migrants' since that's exactly the type of xenophobic twattery bigots like yourself are deluded enough to believe. I'm glad you can finally tell the difference between a refugee and an immigrant because those terms are used interchangeably by your average Trump supporter (could it be possible it's because they're ignorant and bigots?) Have you also not considered that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Muslim migrating here, unless of course they have arrived here illegally (unlikely) or in your case, if you are a bigot and an xenophobic retard who just doesn't seem to like Muslims in general. Trump and his supporters can't make the distinction between a refugee, an immigrant and an illegal immigrant, unsurprisingly.

Sorry that you've been triggered. Nothing I've said is wrong, factually. Name calling only makes you look bad and probably evidence that you have anger issues. I have only been talking about immigrants, not refugees.

Gee you sure do have bad memory, gramps: "First, we don't need to let anybody into our country"

It's not name calling, it's very obvious you are an idiot. Heck, you couldn't even read the relevant bits of the convention, let me help you out:

The Convention defines a ‘refugee’ as any person who:
… owing to well‐founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it …

 

[buckshot24]

Absolutely, you wanting to actively prejudge people based on their religion and treat them differently is bigotry.

Not by the definition you've provided. But I don't want to "actively prejudge" here. I want to vet people coming in from certain parts of the world more thoroughly. That isn't bigotry.

From Vocabulary.com:
bigotry
If a person is intolerant of other ideas, races, or religions, we call that person a bigot. The intolerance expressed by that bigot is called bigotry. Bigotry is ugly.

There are different types of bigotry — like religious bigotry or racist bigotry.

Yeah, intolerance not found. I'm talking about vetting people coming from certain parts of the world more thoroughly. That isn't bigotry that is called being smart.

 

[agent00f]

Not by the definition you've provided. But I don't want to "actively prejudge" here. I want to vet people coming in from certain parts of the world more thoroughly. That isn't bigotry.

Yeah, intolerance not found. I'm talking about vetting people coming from certain parts of the world more thoroughly. That isn't bigotry that is called being smart.

Buckshot will find excuses for a klan rally. "Black people have rallies too". He's that dishonest.

 

[buckshot24]

It is very clear, the only Muslims coming into the US are refugees, specifically Syrian refugees.

How about a citation? I wasn't talking about refugees.

It's retards like you who prejudge them, calling them 'economic migrants'

Citation or apologize for prejudging me and for your hypocrisy.

What deficiency do you have in your life that you think calling people names fills it?

I don't need to take your abuse and I'm not going to. Have a nice night.

 

[Jaskalas]

As suggested, it sounded like residents, rather than incoming immigrants. Not that permanently tracking all newcomers to the country would be very American to begin with. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... so long as we're allowed to spy on them simply for believing in the 'wrong' religion."

The way I'd picture it... ( assuming we're talking something not brashly discriminatory or illegal)

1. Rank nations by terrorism.
2. Score immigrants based on nation and first, second, or third generation.
3. Anti terrorism efforts prioritize profiles in this "database".

And yes, I find my own musings questionable, but that's the purpose of reaching here.
To find some way this subject could be approached.

 

[greatnoob]

How about a citation?

Citation? For what exactly? Are you saying Syrian refugees are somehow not Syrian refugees? (lol) You can't be that dense... stop being an oblivious moron.

I wasn't talking about refugees.
Citation or apologize for prejudging me and for your hypocrisy.

Sounds like you didn't even read the post, did you miss this part:
"I'm glad you can finally tell the difference between a refugee and an immigrant because those terms are used interchangeably by your average Trump supporter"

Hypocrisy? Where? Throwing around random words, huh...

What deficiency do you have in your life that you think calling people names fills it?

I don't need to take your abuse and I'm not going to. Have a nice night.

Again, you didn't read my post: "It's not name calling, it's very obvious you are an idiot."

Your intellectual dishonesty is abuse to all members here. Do the world a favour and never wake up from your slumber, moron..

Nothing I've said is wrong, factually.

First, we don't need to let anybody into our country.

 

[Triloby]

The way I'd picture it... ( assuming we're talking something not brashly discriminatory or illegal)

1. Rank nations by terrorism.
2. Score immigrants based on nation and first, second, or third generation.
3. Anti terrorism efforts prioritize profiles in this "database".

And yes, I find my own musings questionable, but that's the purpose of reaching here.
To find some way this subject could be approached.

The thing is, we've been doing "extreme vetting" on all immigrants since colonial times. What exactly is Trump going to do to make the process anymore extreme than it already is, especially when it comes to Muslims? Last I checked, Syrian refugees are already being extremely vetted under our current immigration policies. It sure as hell doesn't sound like those refugees are being treated with kid gloves.

Trump is just going to continue the same immigration policies we've already had for a long time now. He might toughen up a few of our laws and policies, but it's not going to be the massive change to immigration some people are expecting.

 

[agent00f]

The thing is, we've been doing "extreme vetting" on all immigrants since colonial times. What exactly is Trump going to do to make the process anymore extreme than it already is, especially when it comes to Muslims? Last I checked, Syrian refugees are already being extremely vetted under our current immigration policies. It sure as hell doesn't sound like those refugees are being treated with kid gloves.

Trump is just going to continue the same immigration policies we've already had for a long time now. He might toughen up a few of our laws and policies, but it's not going to be the massive change to immigration some people are expecting.

What's real funny is how these "christians" might feel about others profiling them for their religion; which would be rather more justified given how much they love funding the military to kill darkies.

 

[jackstar7]

Not by the definition you've provided. But I don't want to "actively prejudge" here. I want to vet people coming in from certain parts of the world more thoroughly. That isn't bigotry.

Yeah, intolerance not found. I'm talking about vetting people coming from certain parts of the world more thoroughly. That isn't bigotry that is called being smart.

You cite their religion repeatedly. Please don't run from that now, unless you plan to renounce all of your bigotry en masse, which I would absolutely support. Please stop being a bigot. Please.

They are already thoroughly vetted. You'd fail the vetting to get into this country, that's how good it is.