It isn't liberal claptrap to not demonise millions and millions of people.

If your view aligns with Trumps then you might have to accept that you could be seen as racist, as he is quite clearly very racist.

It's not inane or juvenile to make that correlation Nedusa, how else could you define such an action?

What are you agreeing is the restricted movement of all Muslims, that is the proposal Nedusa is in agreement with here, have you not just spent the past however many months saying 'I don't mean ALL Muslims'... Now it's shown you are open to a blanket ban!
Make up your mind.

:facepalm:

Look, I took heed of Josy's warning on the Tyson Fury post - which was very fair and very mild, given the toxicity of the thread - so I REALLY do not wish to become embroiled in personal argument on this thread, I really don't.

However - once again - you leave me no choice but to respond to you because -- once again -- you are leaping in, not only presumptiously telling me what I'm doing, but also telling me WHAT to do, when you are --- once again --- categorically, emphatically WRONG on ALL counts.

If only you would learn comprehension then you would not keep leaping in with misrepresentations based on misinterpretations.

NOWHERE in the actual post of Nedusa's which I specifically responded to, does she mention Donald Trump OR the banning of all Muslims. This being the absolute truth - how then how can my SPECIFIC response to that SPECIFIC post MEAN that what I am "agreeing to is the restricted movement of all Muslims" as you so wrongly accuse me of?

HERE is the ACTUAL post:

Originally Posted by Nedusa View Post
For the record the reason I hardly post on here anymore is that a certain minority of posters are unable to hold a sensible debate turn every thread into a personal slanging match and a large proportion of them hold the most inane, naive ,juvenile views.

They are not living in the real world more like a rosy make believe reality , they espouse liberal claptrap with no real understanding of how things actually are.

So when I give a point of view that is at odds with their viewpoint I am labelled as horribly racist.....really !!!!

****ing grow up...."


And my response is reproduced here:

Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post
"I GENUINELY miss your posts and sadly have to agree with you."

I was not agreeing with any "restricted movement of all Muslims" whether that may or may not have been "Nedusa's proposal" in any earlier posts - , If I had have been, then I would have purposely responded to THAT particular post IN AGREEMENT of it.

So I think that to anyone with a brain, the above is patently obvious - as is the fact that because I DID NOT respond to such posts at all, let alone IN SUPPORT OF THEM, then it would be indicative of the fact that I DO NOT AGREE with such VIEWS.

No - what I was agreeing with are the general points in that specific post which Nedusa was making about the Serious Debate thread and certain members attitudes on certain subjects - hence my use of the word 'sadly' in "sadly I have to agree with you."

I used the word 'sadly' because the degeneration on Serious Debates to what it was when even I joined DOES personally sadden me, and why would I use such a personal word as 'Sadly' if it had anything to do with Trump or the banning of Muslims in the USA?

NO - you are wrong once again, which makes you once again look foolish, and makes the rest of your post offensive:

"have you not just spent the past however many months saying 'I don't mean ALL Muslims'... Now it's shown you are open to a blanket ban!
Make up your mind."


Last week you were similarly wrong and was proved wrong, but arrogantly refused to apologise to me, so I will not bother asking this time.

'I was agreeing with are the general points in that specific post which Nedusa was making about the Serious Debate thread and certain members attitudes on certain subjects'

Ah right, just after diluting the gene pool further then I see. Well if I am referred to there and I'm not saying am but I would be proud to be.
If there's only one perspective on an issue it ceases to be a debate imo.
Nobody has the inside track on 99% of these topics, we just have our say is all.

Personally, I would ban all idiots, no matter how rich, to be able to run for the presidency.

It's actually heartening to hear a politician speaking openly and honestly. Japanese people were temporarily interned at the start of WW2 because they posed a potential risk. What's the difference. Muslims currently are at war with the west and we are all targets.

This isn't WW3 and we are not at war with the Muslims. If we were at war with Muslims then we would be fighting the Turks, the Iranians and Saudi Arabia; we would be fighting in Morocco, Mali, Egypt and many more countries across Africa and the far and middle east.

Kirk and Kizzy can I suggest that you put eachother on ignore. This constant bickering in here between you two is getting really annoying. Clearly you can't have a debate with eachother without getting personal with eachother so for yours and everyone elses sake, why don't you try it?

Sorry Niamh, I have just posted a response to Kizzy before I saw your post. I think that I give an answer to your excellent suggestion in that post though Niamh.

I do not want banning so I think the only answer is for me to quit Serious Debates because I have GENUINELY tried the above suggestion and other ways.

How about Niamh's suggestion Kizzy? I will abide by a mutual ignore agreement.

User CP - Edit Ignore List and add the name and Bob's your uncle. You don't need a debate about it

Its what Jeremy Corbyn would advise

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. This would be unilateral ignoring wouldn't it? Which does not satisfy me for the valid reason's given in the post of mine which has just been removed.

How's carrying on like you are working out for you?

:hehe:

Is that a singular 'you' Niamh, or a plural 'you' meaning 'you two'? Because I am not to blame for this wearying saga no matter who thinks otherwise - and the truth is easily verifiable should those who blame me wish to check back through a lot of posts on a lot of threads or just the recent ones.

Yes, it is not working out, but I have tried ignoring the other party but that does not stop them responding to my posts to others with misrepresentations and false accusations. I am then left with a problem - respond to correct the wrongs or leave the wrong accusatory post there for posterity.

Hardly a fair option is it?

Singular "you" as I'm only talking to you right now. Honestly Kirk you're both as bad as eachother. I give up, you obviously don't want a solution :shrug:

I apologise Niamh, I do appreciate you trying to help. I really do, and I am as sick of it as you and others are - though to be fair, it is not only me and Kizzy who have been involved in such a manner lately.

I will use the ignore button and see how it goes. Thank you.

Right. So why the constant comparisons about the Jews and Nazi Germany every time a Muslim is perceived to have had his feelings hurt?

Actually the difference between Nazi Germany and here and now is that, Germany was never terrorised by the Jews. The Jews never planted bombs that killed civilians, they never beheaded German infidels, raped and killed women and children, promised never to rest until their flag was flying over Gestapo Headquarters. Also, the terrorist we are fighting right now hide amongst their innocent brothers a sisters making them a target so it's only to be expected that sometimes, those brothers and sisters are going to be a bit inconvenienced for the safety of us all.

There were stories of crimes committed by Jewish people that were wholly taken out of proportion and used to create a state of fear while demonising Jewish people in WW2. It's the same demonisation process, and people are buying into it.

You know it's bad when Farage is distancing himself

"there were stories"

and how does that equate to what al Qaeda and ISIS are doing?

:joker:

He can't get away saying that in this day and age. It was politcal suicide.

You have to surpress your feelings (unless your talking about White Christians, then thats fine)


Enoch Powell said much the same thing, he said they'll be rivers of blood, he was called a racsist, xenophobe, bigot. But it turns out he was correct.

[QUOTE=Livia;8342659]Right. So why the constant comparisons about the Jews and Nazi Germany every time a Muslim is perceived to have had his feelings hurt?

Are you referring those hurt feelings to the Muslims who are fleeing something so awful that we can easily liken it to the exodus of the Jews in WW2? or are you referring to media propaganda that would have us all spitting on Muslims in the street?

Actually the difference between Nazi Germany and here and now is that, Germany was never terrorised by the Jews.

True but then 99.9% of Muslims haven't attacked nor ever will attack British people on the street either.

The Jews never planted bombs that killed civilians, they never beheaded German infidels, raped and killed women and children, promised never to rest until their flag was flying over Gestapo Headquarters.

Again, 99.9% of Muslims haven't beheaded, raped and killed women and children and really don't want to hang their flag over Westminster.

The Daily Mail was constantly pumping out heinous propaganda headlines about the Jews arriving in Britain. According to that newspaper, no woman or child was safe.

Also, the terrorist we are fighting right now hide amongst their innocent brothers a sisters making them a target so it's only to be expected that sometimes, those brothers and sisters are going to be a bit inconvenienced for the safety of us all.

Inconvenienced? You mean inconvenienced in internment camps? Does that include the Muslim professors, Doctors, barristers and other professionals. Does it mean every corner shop has to be closed down whilst these Muslims are kept away from us for our own safety?

It's a little daft to compare WW2 to the current situation when god knows how many ill - conceived arms deals and treaties and advancements in technology are to blame for any extremist and his gran being able to get a hold of a suicide vest. I doubt any given jew facing persecution from the Germans and what not could've defended themselves with much success, let alone go on acts of terror (not that they would of course - although perhaps a few attacks on military strongholds wouldn't have been inconceivable?)