Donald Trump warns of the Muslim Problem

[Seth]

No, Bush is a Progressive and a Marxist useful idiot. Obama is the Marxist.

Only the Retarded Rightwing Rimsters would think that.

Only a fucknut left-wing Marxist useful idiot wouldn't.

Right, so that would cover Bush, though the useful bit is problematic.

What about the majority of decent Merkins who voted for Obama and Bush?

Are they also Marxists?

Mostly just useful idiots.

[tuco]

I did not say its the West responsibility. I said there is perhaps moral responsibility for the situation.

Okay, what is your argument for such a moral responsibility?

Whether to take it into consideration when deciding how to deal with travellers from the regions in question, I said nothing. I was noting fact. I think it would be smart to stop them from wanting/needing to come, because then we would not have to adjust our systems (wires along coast is not something many Europeans would like because it would restrict them etc). Desperate people take desperate measures. I am not prepared to get desperate, for example, by buying gun for protection. I want to stay cool and that means keeping desperate people away from me.

I could look up analysis about relation of climate change and migration, but not atm as I am up to something. I was not aware its controversial.

Depends on whether you are talking about actual climate-driven migration (as in the migration from Russia to Alaska during the last Ice Age) or hypothetical and theoretical climate-driven migration put up as a specious and as-yet unproven excuse for allowing massive exfiltration from the Middle East.

If all Muslim drop dead .. that is not realistic scenario to me so no comment.

It was a statement made to indicate that the problem is clearly driven by Islam, not an actual suggestion.

I said:

Also another thing to consider, who attributed to cause of current situation. Leaving climate change as predominantly our responsibility aside, there is perhaps some lets say moral responsibility for the power vacuum and environment we participated on not only by invasion of Iraq.

If someone does not recognize the so-called moral responsibility, its fine with me. I said .. it is to consider. I consider it as factor, not necessarily moral one. I do not consider invasion of Iraq justified in legal sense and I do consider it as factor when it comes to emergence of ISIS. In other words, was it not for "US" there would not be the problem we are having now. It is something to consider.

As for climate change driven migration, it is more of an outlook for next couple of decades. I always try to look ahead when it comes to policies. In this sense, if analyses suggest that there will be climate change driven migration, it is for me to consider it in the same fashion as invasion of Iraq for example. Cause and consequence.

While I do agree that Islam and democracy as we know it have friction, there are plenty of non-Muslims coming to Europe (not sure about the US). To me, the problem is that people are coming in, no matter who those people are. We could not handle it if they were all Christian or even atheists. There is just too many of them at the moment.

[tuco]

I could look up analysis about relation of climate change and migration, but not atm as I am up to something. I was not aware its controversial.

The blindingly simple is controversial for Seth. If you didn't have enough experience of that with him at ratskep, then you'll soon learn it here.

I had no problem with Seth (and others ..) there and it is yet to be seen if I have one here. I believe here we can call each other idiots, for example, and be done with it. That is good enough for me.

[pErvinalia]

You can't really. You can get away with a little bit of vigorous banter. But if it starts getting nasty, then you'll get called on it.

Regarding Seth, he thinks most people other than right-libertarians and him are Marxists (or are under the sway of some giant Marxist conspiracy). In every debate, when you present a counter fact to whatever the topic is, he has this handy catch all due to his insane conspiracy theory that he can deploy to just totally ignore counter-evidence. That is, ad hom the author(s) as a Marxist. It's fucking retarded.

[tuco]

Yeah, the notion of attacking argument not arguer .. where does it come from anyway? Some laws of nature or something? Because that is what various forums and communities I've had chance to see adopt. Do they have any evidence into this for example or do they just blindly copy rules from elsewhere? Your augment is idiotic vs you are an idiot. Big difference. Makes communities to hold together, helps discourse and friendly environment .. I can only lol to that.

[Tyrannical]

Yeah, the notion of attacking argument not arguer .. where does it come from anyway? Some laws of nature or something? Because that is what various forums and communities I've had chance to see adopt. Do they have any evidence into this for example or do they just blindly copy rules from elsewhere? Your augment is idiotic vs you are an idiot. Big difference. Makes communities to hold together, helps discourse and friendly environment .. I can only lol to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity or more generally an argument's logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.

[tuco]

Well, to me it makes no difference if you call my argument idiotic or if you call me idiot. It offends me not either way. What offends me, for example, is banning, for example, alleged racists or trolls or basically anyone who (vocal) majority deems as "unwanted".

[Tyrannical]

Well, to me it makes no difference if you call my argument idiotic or if you call me idiot. It offends me not either way. What offends me, for example, is banning, for example, alleged racists or trolls or basically anyone who (vocal) majority deems as "unwanted".

I'm not an alleged racist. I proudly admit that I am

[tuco]

Alleged or real, makes no difference. Racists are people too.

[NineBerry]

But smelly people.

[tuco]

*shrugs* yeah we kick smelly people out of public transport and I do not like that too. To me it boils down to .. we dont not like you (for whatever arbitrary reason) thus you need to go. Fuck that, you need to shut the fuck up or be more tolerant, in my opinion.

[pErvinalia]

That's looking at it the wrong way. It's the RACISTS who are intolerant. By definition.

[tuco]

Wrong way? I assume you know the right way? lol I know they are not tolerant but that does not mean I have to be like them. I like to be tolerant, it makes me feel good. I also guess that by banning or otherwise penalising such people for speaking their mind will do nothing for them in sense that it will not make them to change their opinion, assuming they are being honest. And finally, if they are being honest, why to punish them? From their point of view, they done nothing wrong, yet been penalized for it. This is something I can relate to.

[pErvinalia]

You were aiming your vitriol at the wrong target. Being intolerant of racists is not equivalent to racists being intolerant of people because of some trait outside their control.

[tuco]

See, here we are. I am not aware of any vitriol. Being sarcastic perhaps but vitriol? Vitriol burns skin I think. What can I say? My record is evidence of my consistent opinion about this. I defended perhaps everyone banned/suspended from rationalskepticism I knew of and I will continue to do so because I believe its right, I like being like that.