Desperate Times - Desperate Measures

a reply to: scorpio84

I don't believe I called you anything. I merely think you are very wrong.

As for whether you're a black female, or white, I couldn't care less...I just thought it odd that you claim, or seem to, to be both in separate threads.

You are, in essence, calling for an apartheid regime, very reminiscent of the Jim Crow south of George Wallace, and others of his ilk. Now then, what do you suppose Rev. King would have thought about that?

Now tell me again, his speech is relevant to this discussion.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: scorpio84

Well, you claimed to be a black female to duck the question of whether, since you're a white male, you should be placed under 24/7 monitoring since most mass shootings in the US are carried out by white males, I would say being called out on your blatant lie makes it matter.

But yes, SG is racist for calling you out on your lie. After several pages of your religious intolerance is spewed.

Do your arms get tired from all the reaching? Legs tired from all the tap dancing? Poor guy.

1). I said I was a black female to point out the foolishness of your assumption. Yes, I'm a white male - but that means nothing. Plenty of people from all backgrounds - white, black, Asian, gay, straight, etc. agree with my positions about getting rid of the threat of Islamic extremism. Make it a "race" issue all you want, but it isn't. The issue has been and remains that Western culture is under attack.

2). Most mass shootings are carried out by white males - or most reported mass shootings? People get shot in gang warfare everyday in the United States - are they mostly white? However, I digress, because bringing up mass shootings is an attempt to spin the conversation in a different direction. Unlike Islamic extremists and the Muslims who overtly (and worse, tacitly) support their cause, the mass shooters are not trying to overthrow our culture. Perhaps you don't see that difference. One day, I'm sure you will.

3). Name one instance in which I've "spewed" religious intolerance. If I was intolerant of Islam, I would have advocated banning Islam - yet I did not. However, I'm not going to ignore the fact that the ones using terrorism to destroy our way of life are all Muslim. Once again, you attempt to twist what I've said to do what, exactly? Defend the terrorists and their supporters? Maybe your culture means jack squat to you - but other, like myself, would like to preserve it.

4). Reaching and dancing...nice one. Do you ever get tired of making claims of racism and intolerance without ever actually addressing the issues presented or presenting any of your own ideas on the matter?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: scorpio84

I don't believe I called you anything. I merely think you are very wrong.

As for whether you're a black female, or white, I couldn't care less...I just thought it odd that you claim, or seem to, to be both in separate threads.

You are, in essence, calling for an apartheid regime, very reminiscent of the Jim Crow south of George Wallace, and others of his ilk. Now then, what do you suppose Rev. King would have thought about that?

Now tell me again, his speech is relevant to this discussion.

You are fully entitled to your opinion, but if you think I'm wrong that Islam is a threat to Western civilization, I suggest you study a bit of history - and more importantly, learn more about Islam itself. No, I'm not calling for apartheid - that would be the oppression of a specific group. I'm not advocating that Muslim doctors who are citizens and have done nothing wrong be pulled from their practice. I'm not advocating outlawing Islam. I'm sorry you don't see the difference between my suggestions and apartheid.

Yes, I'm advocating inconveniencing some people. Better a few people are upset than an entire culture goes under.

a reply to: scorpio84

1) no, you tried to duck being watched because you're far more likely to go kill a bunch of people than any terrorist is in America right now.

2) yes, people get shot in gang fights. I live and work in a large, very large city. I don't recall ever, not once, hearing of a gang fight resulting in 20 some people being killed. And yes, I would know.

3) pretty much every comment you've made and both threads you "authored."

4) you must work for the Feds I'm guessing? Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-allegations. But no, I never tire of pointing out when people like you do what people like you do.

5) it's clear that you're the kind of person that considers any time you have the last word to be a victory for yourself and your "ideas" so I'll be benevolent and let you have your victory now. You take care, guy, and don't forget to check under your bed for scary Muslims.

a reply to: scorpio84

We've reached a point of impasse.

I'll leave you with this thought, do with it as you will...

Denying any freedoms for any group of people in the name of "security" is apartheid, and will, in the long run, cause more problems than it solves.

As an example, or two of 'em, the South during the Civil Rights movement. Read up on Jim Crow. All those laws were to protect a culture too.

South African apartheid was to protect a culture.

How many died on all sides because of those misguided attempts to "protect society"? ...protect them from what? The ones doing the protecting were more dangerous than the supposed bad guys. In both cases.

Muslims here in the states, with a very few exceptions are no danger at all. Certainly the ones I know aren't.

Nothing good ever comes of segregation. Eventually those chickens come home to roost. They always have, and always will.

...and if a culture is so weak that it can't abide differing beliefs? Then maybe, just maybe, it deserves to go down. But it won't, because I have, apparently, more faith in its innate strength, and resiliancy, then you do.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Okay guy.

1). I seriously doubt I'm far more likely to kill a bunch of people in America than a terrorist seeing as I don't even live in America.

2). Fair enough - but compare the number of deaths due to a mass shooting with that due to gang violence

3). Why the quotes?

4). People like me? You mean people who won't take an obvious attack on our culture sitting with folded hands? You can spit your vitriol about my position all you want - it does nothing to lessen the validity of my claim. One of us will be proven wrong. Perhaps we do nothing and things work out and the world gets along - I'd love that. However, maybe we followed my plan and I turned out to be wrong - some people inconvenienced (yes, "inconvenienced" - I have never advocated putting people in ghettos/camps or doing any number of the things you and others accuse me of). What would be the consequence if I'm wrong? Now, what if you are wrong? What would the consequence of that be?

5). So long as there are people like you who are blind to what is happening, there is no "victory."

Muslims don't "scare" me. What scares me is that there seem to be more Westerners who would willingly allow their culture to be destroyed than protect it.

a reply to: seagull

Denying any freedoms for any group of people in the name of "security" is apartheid

That would be a very simplistic view and one that does not incorporate all of what Apartheid was. Total freedom is suicidal for a nation.

South African apartheid was to protect a culture.

I'd say it was more to protect a possession. I could see how you arrive at your conclusion, though. The thing is - Apartheid was not protecting a culture from attack, it was protecting a ruling class from losing power.

Muslims here in the states, with a very few exceptions are no danger at all. Certainly the ones I know aren't.

Agreed. In America, Muslims assimilate quite well, by and large. I think the problem is far greater in European countries like Sweden, the UK, France, and to some extent, Germany, where the Muslim population is less likely than their American counterparts to integrate into the already existing culture. Still, so long as they hope for a Dar al-Islam, precaution would be wise.

and if a culture is so weak that it can't abide differing beliefs? Then maybe, just maybe, it deserves to go down.

I don't see this as attacking other beliefs, but rather not allowing our way of life to be destroyed. Western culture does tolerate other beliefs - it is the most tolerant culture on Earth. It wasn't always that way, but it is now - and we are living in the now, not in the past. If a culture that cannot abide differing beliefs deserves to go down, then you have just made the case against allowing these people (terrorists and those who support them) to instill their culture upon us.