[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Imo the ban is a step too far.I think heavy vetting is appropriate though.
However.He is fulfilling his election promises and it is what America voted for so if it's what the US democratic process has decided then that it what should happen.

I can only suggest you read the judgement. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rder.html?_r=1 You might then understand the presidential (not political) basis on which the decision was made.

I'm afraid it's 40 pages, but if you make the effort you might understand what Donald Trump obviously doesn't.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

How did those terrorists get into the US in the first place?
And didn't some of them even get flying lessons there?

They would have gotten in anyway coming from Saudi and Egypt. Again my point is plane hijacks are not affected by border control.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They would have gotten in anyway coming from Saudi and Egypt. Again my point is plane hijacks are not affected by border control.

Well let's add them to the list then. I don't give a damn about business interests and neither should anyone else. Saudi is one of the worst. Having money and therefore considerable access to education certainly hasn't educated the Saudis'.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Well let's add them to the list then. I don't give a damn about business interests and neither should anyone else. Saudi is one of the worst. Having money and therefore considerable access to education certainly hasn't educated the Saudis'.

Right, so that's every majority Muslim country in the world...Why not go the whole hog and ban Muslims from anywhere including converts just in case?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They would have gotten in anyway coming from Saudi and Egypt. Again my point is plane hijacks are not affected by border control.

Well you would hope that they will be vetted.Even from the muslim countries Trump doesn't seem to mind.I can't believe that US border agencies don't check people entering from Saudi or Egypt after 9/11.That would be highly irresponsible.Anyone entering a country is affected by border control.
As i said.I don't agree with the ban or the refugee ban.However vetting is only sensible.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

By just letting the likes of dictatorships such China and many Muslim countries off the hook by just accepting that is their way and we can do nothing about it compounds the problem.

These people and their ways need to be challenged as religion is often just used as an excuse to indulge in grotesque, primitive practice and criminal acts. This fear some have of challenging such so-called religious practice is not democratic it is cowardice.

We are not responsible for policing the world nor should we force our views and ways onto countries halfway around the world.

To get involved with places like NK could easily spark a series of events that could lead us into WW3.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Right, so that's every majority Muslim country in the world...Why not go the whole hog and ban Muslims from anywhere including converts just in case?

What's the alternative. Currently allowing so many into the West poses a Hugh security risk to the safety of everyone in the West. There are 2 main choices as far as I can see - the safety of people in the West or the religious freedoms of those wanting to come to the West.

I certainly don't believe the freedoms/religious freedoms of non-citizens should prevail over the safety of Western citizens in the West. Anything else would be Skewered but politically correct priorities.

The West is only a small part of the world after all.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

We are not responsible for policing the world nor should we force our views and ways onto countries halfway around the world.

To get involved with places like NK could easily spark a series of events that could lead us into WW3.

We are responsible for those living in the West. That would be a good start - make it clear what we will and won't tolerate in the West. We aren't doing that due to fears of causing offence and intruding on religous freedoms. Why is it our own rights and freedoms that come a poor second with some?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

We are responsible for those living in the West. That would be a good start - make it clear what we will and won't tolerate in the West. We aren't doing that due to fears of causing offence and intruding on religous freedoms. Why is it our own rights and freedoms that come a poor second with some?

Stop moving the goalposts.

The rest of the post is just hysterical nonsense that has nothing to do with the discussion you raised of forcing our ways onto other countries.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

What's the alternative. Currently allowing so many into the West poses a Hugh security risk to the safety of everyone in the West. There are 2 main choices as far as I can see - the safety of people in the West or the religious freedoms of those wanting to come to the West.

I certainly don't believe the freedoms/religious freedoms of non-citizens should prevail over the safety of Western citizens in the West. Anything else would be Skewered but politically correct priorities.

The West is only a small part of the world after all.

but hang on, if it's a politician wanting this segregation, does that not make it 'politically correct'?
I see your view as regressive and hysterical, you're coming across as almost paralyzed with fear.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Stop changing the goalposts.

The rest of the post is just hysterical nonsense that has nothing to do with the discussion you raised of forcing our ways onto other countries.

Nothing hysterical, just fact. That wasn't exactly what I said. I said we should address the behaviours of other nations, not just ignore them. We cannot do that if we don't address similar behaviours of people living in the West. They are linked.

We can and should address unacceptable practice under our own roofs, so to speak, such as female circumcision, honour killings, forced marriages, female inequality etc. We all know it goes on. It may not be legal but we do little to investigate it and stop it. Many turn a blind eye rather than risk upsetting certain groups it's disgraceful.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

but hang on, if it's a politician wanting this segregation, does that not make it 'politically correct'?
I see your view as regressive and hysterical, you're coming across as almost paralyzed with fear.

I see the same in you. To me you are fearful of public opinion and being seen as anything other then modern and progressive. At the end of the day 'progressive' is an opinion - what one person sees as progressive another sees as regressive.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Nothing hysterical, just fact. That wasn't exactly what I said. I said we should address the behaviours of other nations, not just ignore them. We cannot do that if we don't address similar behaviours of people living in the West. They are linked.

We can and should address unacceptable practice under our own roofs, so to speak, such as female circumcision, honour killings, forced marriages, female inequality etc. We all know it goes on. It may not be legal but we do little to investigate it and stop it. Many turn a blind eye rather than risk upsetting certain groups it's disgraceful.

Learn the difference between facts and opinions. Nothing you said in the post below is a fact.

Originally Posted by Brillopad

We are responsible for those living in the West. That would be a good start - make it clear what we will and won't tolerate in the West. We aren't doing that due to fears of causing offence and intruding on religous freedoms. Why is it our own rights and freedoms that come a poor second with some?

You're trying to move the goalposts AGAIN, you said we should basically police the world and now since you don't really have a leg to stand on in that discussion you're returning to the ol' Brillo special of ranting on about Muslims and masking your prejudice as feminism which is nothing but insulting to actual feminists.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I see the same in you. To me you are fearful of public opinion and being seen as anything other then modern and progressive. At the end of the day 'progressive' is an opinion - what one person sees as progressive another sees as regressive.

Too right I'm fearful of regression... Who in their right mind would want to go back to the days of segregation?
The view that it is an option is very telling.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Too right I'm fearful of regression... Who in their right mind would want to go back to the days of segregation?
The view that it is an option is very telling.

Stop twisting my words - not being prepared to accept misogynistic practice in any circumstances for example is not regressive. In my view tolerating such behaviours in the name of religion is. As I said what is one person's progression is another's regression.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Learn the difference between facts and opinions. Nothing you said in the post below is a fact.



You're trying to move the goalposts AGAIN, you said we should basically police the world and now since you don't really have a leg to stand on in that discussion you're returning to the ol' Brillo special of ranting on about Muslims and masking your prejudice as feminism which is nothing but insulting to actual feminists.

What would you know about feminism, you're not a woman. As a woman I have experienced sexism on several occasions which has undoubtedly and understandably helped form my opinions.

I'm not moving anything btw. What we oppose in other counties and then tolerate in our own, for whatever reason, are inextricably linked. Without consistency we have nothing.

Many pay lip-service to something saying a certain practice is wrong but then tolerate it when certain religious groups practice it in their country because they want to be seen as inclusive and progressive. They effectively turn a blind eye because it's the easy option. No time for it personally. I try to practice what I preach.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Stop twisting my words - not being prepared to accept misogynistic practice in any circumstances for example is not regressive. In my view tolerating such behaviours in the name of religion is. As I said what is one person's progression is another's regression.

No misogynistic practices have been incorporated into our society... America have a misogynistic president so how you feel about that I don't know, and there are other religions and cultures with as bad or worse attitudes towards women.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

No misogynistic practices have been incorporated into our society... America have a misogynistic president so how you feel about that I don't know, and there are other religions and cultures with as bad or worse attitudes towards women.

Which religions are worse than Islam to women?

Genuinely interested.

(Don't say Scientology)

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

What would you know about feminism, you're not a woman. As a woman I have experienced sexism on several occasions which has undoubtedly and understandably helped form my opinions.

I'm not moving anything btw. What we oppose in other counties and then tolerate in our own, for whatever reason, are inextricably linked. Without consistency we have nothing.

Many pay lip-service to something saying a certain practice is wrong but then tolerate it when certain religious groups practice it in their country because they want to be seen as inclusive and progressive. They effectively turn a blind eye because it's the easy option. No time for it personally. I try to practice what I preach.

Hold the phone...Are you suggesting a man can't know anything about feminism?
Is it some esoteric knowledge you're only privvy to if you have a vagina?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Which religions are worse than Islam to women?

Genuinely interested.

(Don't say Scientology)

I said religions and cultures, why don't you have a little google?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I said religions and cultures, why don't you have a little google?

You informed us of these religions (and cultures).I'm interested in the religion aspect.Which ones?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Hold the phone...Are you suggesting a man can't know anything about feminism?
Is it some esoteric knowledge you're only privvy to if you have a vagina?

He can know something but can't experience it like a woman, so therefore cannot attempt to imply he knows better.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

He can know something but can't experience it like a woman, so therefore cannot attempt to imply he knows better.

And where did he state or imply he knows better? You are bringing feminism up as a crutch for your weak argument, as far as I can see it's just a desperate cover for a colonialist attitude.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

You informed us of these religions (and cultures).I'm interested in the religion aspect.Which ones?

I did, I made a statement in an earlier post.... however the onus isn't on me to prove myself right, but you to prove me wrong.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I did, I made a statement in an earlier post.... however the onus isn't on me to prove myself right, but you to prove me wrong.

Ok then.I'll just take your word for it