clinical psychologist explains how and why liberals think the way they do

[Amenotejikara]

USA's superiority complex and generalising sweeping statements to come to condescending conclusions. As per usual.

Gotta love that 'Us & Them' mentality going strong. Idiots.

so ****ing true.

 

[Sagebee]

I'm actually left of center on the political spectrum, I just don't believe in cultural Marxism, but I feel like because you believe I align with the right, you will place certain standards and prejudices on me through out your reply. Also, whether you consider Hillary Clinton liberal or not doesn't truly matter. She identifies with the liberal views, her stances on outside of social issues such as natural energy, educational funding, law enforcement and affirmative action, and financial reform would lead you to believe that she's a liberal, but if you have issues where she appears more conservative than liberal that you want to bring to light, please do so.

I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth there. I don't care what people think or say about my beliefs, I actually favor high criticism.


No, that's called being insecure. Trump is a dolt with many flaws, but he's far from PC.

po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness
noun
the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Unless Bill Maher took a shot at Trump's scottish heritage, or made fun of his wife for being an immigrant, Trump was being nothing more than an insecure dolt.


Saying systematic racism does not exist does not equate to denying the existence of issues caused by systematic racism. I, myself am black, and I'm fully aware of the negative effects Jim Crow and the War on Drugs had upon blacks in America. I have the right to be upset about America's past, and I am, but I'm not going sit here and act as if I am still oppressed. It's true I might be set back from the starting line by a few meters from a social and economical stand point, but me *****ing about it and not running the race isn't going to help.


I didn't mention anything about abortion in my original comment (pressing ctrl+f), you were the first to do so. But since we're on the topic, I have mixed feelings about abortion. I don't believe women should face corporal punishment for having an abortion, but I don't believe that women should be allowed to have an abortion any time during her pregnancy. Of course, I don't think there should be any law infringed upon women who choose to have an abortion, the government shouldn't have a say in the matter.



The issues on mexican immigration, Muslims, and blacks, are a little more gray then guilty vs not guilty, but its true Trump has some weird obsession/grudge, love hate relationship with China.

When it comes to illegal immigrants, statistics from the Center of Immigration studies show that there is enough evidence to claim that illegal immigrant does have a negative impact on u.s. employment for non-skilled workers, of course illegal immigrants are not the cause of ALL job loss, but they've causes a significant amount. The C.I.S. states "The idea that there are jobs American's don't do is simply not supported by the data. Moreover, there is good research showing that immigrants displace natives from the labor market.". So Trump is not wrong in blaming Mexican's for job loss.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

When it comes to Muslims, they were the causes of over 12,000 deaths in 2015 alone. 450 of the 452 suicide bombings in that year alone was caused by Muslim extremist. In countries densely inhabited by Muslims, the rate at which they are in favor for suicide bombing in defense of Islam is extremely high. I can bring up more and more stats, but I believe what I've provide is sufficient enough for Trump to claim that Muslim's are violent. Of course he never said all, but to some, not saying all is to say all, which is never the case.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

Hopefully you can take my word on blacks being the highest common denominator when it comes to crime and civil unrest, and that I won't have to post statistics for that as well. As for the spike in hate crimes, I see a correlation, but no causation. Finding evidence for such a claim can be difficult without running into biased and partisan sources, so I won't accept it as truth until proven other wise.



People are looking at what is taking place in the U.K (Brexit), and western European countries such as Germany, see the spike in criminal and terrorist activity, and demand a vetting process be put in place as we accept refugees into the country from now onward. You're also undermining the effects that mass immigration has on national debt, and the economy. Mind you, those are 10,000 human beings that are being housed, fed, and provided tools and finances for integration into the U.S., at the expense of tax payers dollars, so it's a very serious topic.



You state deporting illegal immigrants seems unethical, but you quickly glaze over the modifier of what makes these immigrants and issue. Whether this was intentional, or unintentional, it confirms my biased against liberals. Claiming the deportation of illegals is unethical is a logical fallacy. I find it unethical to come into a country illegally, while simultaneously cutting in front of hundreds of immigrants who fight for years to come to America through the legal process placed. Whether you believe it's morally wrong to deport them is irrelevant, there are laws put in place for a reason.


I'm curious as to who this they is.




As I've stated in my original comment, they are not asking people not to discriminate, they are forcing people to accept them through law and legislation. This is what cultural Marxism is. Jordan Peterson, the person Joe Rogan is interviewing in the video has become popular because of his opposition of the bill C-16, which is an amendment to Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, which states "This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence." as a result of this, something as simple as not referring to someone as their desired pronoun is perceived as a hate crime and can result in corporal punishment. This infringes on several of peoples freedoms and forces people to adopt the pseudoscience indoctrination of a "gender spectrum", and I'm personally against infringing on people's rights. Yes understanding women's issues and minority issues is not Marxist, but pushing for laws that make it so the amount of men in women working at a seniority position at a corporation is split 50/50, and making sure blacks and other minorities are fairly represented in every aspect of society is Marxist.

The liberals I speak of would look at your signature and instead of crediting it for looking badass af, they would question the artist as to why there aren't any minorities or more women in it.


The problem does not lie on the comment, but it lies with those who determine it's sexist or racist. We live in a society where stating "you have black friends", can be considered racist. I'm against racism, and sexism, and all the forms of negative -isms, but I do have a problem with exclusivity of humor and subject matter. You can take a complete shit on the religion of Christianity, be perfectly fine, but make a joke about Islam, and you have 17 different -isms stapled on to your character. This is a form of Cultural Marxism.

You must be registered for see images

Spoiler

I couldn't imagine the amount of outrage among my household alone, if this video was titled "Dear Black Guys"

I disagree with Sanders, I don't care about the amount of minorities or women we have in government, and he shouldn't either. I believe people who are courageous capable, skilled, and prove to be promising should be appointed to positions in government, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. It's the idea that society must reach a diversity quota that I have a problem with.




I've provided nearly two paragraphs of history detailing how political correctness and cultural Marxism has a place at the forefront of Liberal discussion, and some how you're still able to claim it's nothing more than a red scare tactic. That is just terrifying. lol

Also, I did not dismiss the idea of being wrong. You've asked a question, I've responded, and in your very first counter argument, you state that I'll "dismiss any notion that you might be wrong about the way you perceive the issues they represent", without giving me a chance to do so. That's not fair at all, if you ask me.

Asking for equal representation rather than acquiring equal representation through the means others acquired representation in itself is communism. Asking for equal representation of men and women in STEM fields, when the majority of women major in psychology, medical, and social study, is Marxism. Asking for equal representation of blacks in the film industry when they dominate the music and sports industry, is Marxism.

Even tho I agree with the central arguement this professor of how these type of policies only hurt people's civil liberties in an attempt to do what they think is the right thing. My issue is with the take away conservatives have gotten from this as if they don't do the same thing or to a greater degree as they push policies forcing us to conform to their ideology.

I personally don't consider myself either a conservative or liberal even though there are parts I agree with and disagreement with, but due to bipartisanship and identity politics it's not possible to express such beliefs. Politics then just becomes about ideological tribalism creating it's a us vs them atmosphere which doesn't allow us to discuss the issues or ever allow it to be possible for any middle ground to be found and this division is more extreme than even this half the population considers the other half a threat to their way of life and enemy. This is the central to this election as the pendulum just keeps swinging more extreme.

It's not that trump won but that Hillary and the system failed us. The core message promoted by the most popular candidates of both sides was at its core a message of anti establushment. The democrats stifled the votes of people who wanted Bernie splitting and weakening the Democrats. Fundamentally when I talk to people they agree both hillary and Donald were horrible candidates, but he all east spoke on issues people care about like jobs when a major percentage of the population is without work. Donald spoke on more left policies than hillary while Hillary's policies pushed to the right and Hillary wasn't a canidate that the left could champion this election disenchanted the left with considerable lower voter turnout.

Also to your point about Sanders he didn't say in that speech that there needs to be a diversity quota, but that more people from these groups should seek getting into politics, but that we shouldn't vote for them based on race or gender but that they are the best for the job so what there to disagree with.

As for the issue of how political correctness played in the election I first got to say how disingenuous and hypocritical this topic is. When you hear the issue of political correctness brought it should be about how something is not allowed to be discussed, but that's not the fact of the matter quite opposite these topics are actually unfairly skewed to the right when it comes to mainstream media which allows for extreme right rhetoric and just straight propaganda. The issue isn't that people aren't allowed to speak on these topics but a matter of forcing the general public to adopt there stance and not to be penalized when your saying blatant hate speech. Topics of political correctness are solely about race and religion, and when Donald talked about these issues he didn't step outside the rights stance he just unabashfully attacked these positions with no care of facts nuance care of impact and the sensational media loves extremes and he had a media frenzy on him pushing Donald to give even more divisive rhetoric. It's also mind blowing what he got away with saying even before the election like saying Obama is a secret Muslim and should show his birth certificate and people took this seriously while he never showed his tax returns.

People speak to the racism and bigotry trump emboldened in the country, but you could potentially say those are just isolated incidence what's worse is how trump has emboldened public officials to say whatever. There was a story of a public official saying that Michelle Obama is a monkey and there multiple stories from a news anchor, a woman deals with public assistance and a guy the worked in trumps campaign team and even worse same guy hoping for barracks death in the worst if ways. This is becoming acceptable and media now is promoting white supremacists because of trump. Is this what people wanted and fought for when they discuss political correctness to allow blatant hate speech to not just become common place but promoted by govt.

Also for issues of people expressing they feel they are treated with injustice what people do are either create false equivalency to trivialize the real issue or just completely distract from the issue. For gender issues I can understand why as men we feel we get the short end stick and why as men feel segments of feminist come off as anti men which comes back to earlier issue of identity politics that people fighting for their rights at the expense of others. But the issue becomes real woman issues as men we ignore or side with based on our own identity politics. Issues like the rights opposition to black Lives Matter I really see no excuse to this, but all they do is misrepresent the few bad actors and paint it as if the message is anti white when the core issue is about people getting unjustly murdered by cops and these cops not being prosecuted, it's one thing to be not found guilty, but there not even being taken to court. Usually in these dialogues a person will point out the one or two ambigious cases to justify the plethora of other cases there's literally no excuse to what happened. Then another distraction done than dealing with this issue is bring up black criminal stats as if that excuses or relates to those issue. When people say these things and other stats you brought up they do it with no honesty accountability and empathy. Most african Americans crime in community is problem but people don't speak on ask why it is the govt actively ruined these communities due to the war on drugs were drugs flooded intimate these communities and creates unfair drug laws specifically targeting African Americans. But besides this people don't bring it up to help these people but use it to blame them I can't even see no other point, but being malicious and to distract from the issue. There people actively trying to fix these communities that institutionally created the crime there, but if you want to call out what's wrong why not call out the cops that unjustly murdered what possible excuse is there not to do so.

As for illegal immigrants I've personally dealt with them in my schooling but I still think we need to be able to track whose in the country. But if we are discussing what's setting people back on jobs we should be looking at the people in govt and business that actually negatively effecting the economy. I'm also skeptical how the govt would handle issue I'm not sure the validaty in this but heard that illegal immigrants with misdemeanors are getting arrested and instead of being deported work in prisons doing free manual labor for companies.

For your stats you posted on muslims like the ones you did of African Americans highlights the ignorance unaccountablity and apathy when they discuss these issues. First off your own stat shows the majority of Muslims are against suicide attacks also if you cared to do the research you would know it's sinful to do so for one committing suicide and secondly not just killing innocent people, but civilians that aren't even part of the battle. Also issue about immigration in this issue you brand all these immigrants with these criminal activities, but if you don't want immigration of these people than should you not hold accountable countries that's trying to destabilize these countries for their own agenda and it's no secret that the u.s. funnels weapons to these fighters and even these different regimes propping up dictators. There's reports that the initial attacks of the Syrian war was due to outside intervention. Instead of people acknowledging this we turn it to Islam is the problem discussion if you actually look at what these extremists say they site political reasons for what they are doing, also people say scripture sites these people to indiscriminately kill which is false and muslims are the ones that are predominately killed, but they want paint these guys as the true muslims and representatives of Islam. Also a fact that is never said if you look at the statistics for domestic terrorism the biggest group is right wing groups while muslims that do terror acts aren't even a handful, but a whole group gets the blame.

There's hardly any people that care to actually really look into the issues it's usually to reaffirm what they think and genuinely want solutions people are superficial and reactionary to practically all issues

 

[kimb]

Study vs an actual state-wide event.

If the actual event contradicted the study, that only means the study was fallible in its data.

That's not how statistics work. If you have information following a general trend in the form of a bell curve, but find incidences where certain samples and studies don't follow the general trend or fall outside the bell curve, they're known as outliers. Outliers are common among nearly all statistics, your study being one of them. Just because you find outliers does not mean the statistics are fallible. "Just because Yao Ming, an asian basketball player for the Houston Rockets falls out of the bell curve following the trend of the average Asian man's height, does not mean the statistics on the average height of Asian men is fallible.

Also, I just researched that the source you posted and apparently the "center for immigration studies" is actually an anti-immigration, alt-right site posing as a non-partisan think tank, creating by John Tanton who has a white nationalistic background.

So pretty much the data you sourced for your immigration argument was falsified.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Well, considering your data was from an anti-immigration site. It's best we skip this argument.

I agree John Tanton is partisan, but the statistics provided by the CIS are not, not to mention the claims of him being alt-right or a white nationalist is is coming from the biased left who disagree with his stances. NyTimes, the Daily Beast, the Washington post, etc. are all left leaning media outlets, so quoting them claiming someone on the right is a nationalist or is a member of the alt-right is as credible as quoting the Redstate claiming Obama is a Muslim apologist or a socialist.

And just because you have right wing media or alt-right media defending CIS does not automatic make CIS alt-right. That's guilt by association. It's the same as claiming Hillary Clinton as being a homophobe because of her associate with Saudi Arabia, or claiming Donald Trump is a racist because of his support by the KKK. So to discredit CIS as an organization because of its creation by a partisan entity doesn't make sense. Oddly enough, members of the research board for CIS, such as Dr. Steven Camarota have written articles for left leaning media sources such as the washington post, and the NYtimes, the same source the cites John Tanton as being an "Anti-immigration Crusader"

You must be registered for see links

Since the CIS has ties to a partisan entity, I'll cite the Pew Research Center which is notoriously unbiased. According to them,
"The U.S. civilian workforce included 8 million unauthorized immigrants in 2014, accounting for 5% of those who were working or were unemployed and looking for work"

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

Of those 8 million, they make up 26% of the farming work force, 15% of the construction, 9% percent of the production, 6% of transportation, and 5% of the civilian labor force, which can all be considered unskilled jobs. Unlike the CIS, the PRS provided stats on illegal immigrants working in the skilled (professional) work force; "Among unauthorized immigrant workers, 6% held management jobs in 2014, compared with 15% of U.S.-born workers who did. An additional 8% were in professional occupations, compared with 22% of U.S.-born workers. Sales and office support occupations employed 13% of unauthorized immigrant workers, compared with 25% of U.S.-born workers who held these types of jobs."

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

With the PSR's and the CIS's national studies, which both follow a parallel trend, re-crediting the CIS, there's enough evidence to justify blame of job loss on illegal immigration.

The only crime committed is not adhering to a governmental label which can easily be addressed by granting amnesty and citizenship.

Again, I believe illegal immigration should be regulated. But if an illegal immigrant is in this country for 10+ years and has a family, a job, and is even paying taxes. Then no, I fundamentally think it is morally unjustified to deport him simply on the merit that he is not a legal citizen.

The suggestion of granting amnesty when it comes to dealing with long standing illegal immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for over a decade, is a more reasonable argument. Although, I disagree with rewarding illegals, who've managed to stay out of the social services radar for 10 plus years, with amnesty. The logic behind not deporting illegals who have been residence of the U.S. for 10+ years makes as much sense as letting a serial murderer get off the hook because the people he killed died decades ago.

The problem with your solution is that the illegal immigrants who fit the criteria of being long standing residence will always be a constant, new illegal immigrants will be coming into the country, year after year, and eventually, they too will arrive at the 10 year mark of the residence in the U.S. Granting amnesty and citizenship grants a solution for illegal immigrants, but ignores immigration law, and the damage done to the job market and the U.S.'s infrastructure. It's granting a happy ending after the damage is done, only because the damage is done.

You're downplaying the severity of the situation.

Islam wasn't discussed, it was demonized. And the conclusion was banning all Muslims, even if they are citizens of the U.S. and by violating the First Amendment.

The refugee crisis was started because of an extreme drought, not because of religious beliefs.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Droughts cannot and do not account for the reasoning behind the mass migration of over 4 million Syrian Refugees.
I'd like to quote this comment I found under the first article in reaction to what was stated;
"So, a good rain could have stopped all this?

What influence it may have had was absolutely inconsequential compared to the real stressors, like ethnic tensions, economic inequality, brutal dictatorship by a minority, etc.

If it's otherwise; then we all should expect some bad upheaval in drought-stricken California soon."
With that being said, I don't believe droughts being a significant factor of mass Muslim immigration from Syria is a substantial claim.

I believe in peaceful protest, yes.

But that's not to say riots happen without reason. When people are ignored for so long, violence eventually spurs.

I don't believe violence in this situation is ever justified. You look at the civil rights movement, who had accomplished a larger feat of dismantling Jim Crow laws, along with granting blacks true equality by the law. That was all done with peaceful protest, in contrast to BLM, who burn down their own cities, towns, local businesses, and harass and beat innocent bystanders because they're white, costing millions of tax dollars in repairs ALL in the name of social justice.

The problem with BLM is partly to do with the riots, but mostly to do with the purpose of the riots. I already know that BLM stands on the false premise of the government and law enforcement being systematically racist, so I believe they have no reason to riot, yet alone to protest, but the problem with BLM is that they're unorganized, as you stated before. It is a movement with no method to achieving something that has already been accomplished.

Ok, what is the point of bringing up Cultural Marxism if not to demonize the current beliefs of the left?

Unless you're saying that not all aspects of Marxist beliefs are bad and that adopting some of his philosophies in a moderate way is not a bad thing and does not mean that the left will eventually adhere to Communism?

That is what this whole argument is essentially about.

The point of bringing up Cultural Marxism is to bring awareness to an extremist sect of the left that has been festering and growing for far too long, and that needs to come to an end. Note, there is a difference between identifying as left leaning on the political spectrum and being a cultural Marxist. Also note, the end goal of cultural Marxism is not economic communism and has nothing to do with economic communism, but follows the same theory as communism and tries to achieve social equality.

There is a difference between being a liberal on the left and being a cultural Marxist. Its as simple as the difference between believing men and women should be treated equal, and believing women are oppressed and everything between men and women should be equal.

 

[Lightbringer]

That's not how statistics work. If you have information following a general trend in the form of a bell curve, but find incidences where certain samples and studies don't follow the general trend or fall outside the bell curve, they're known as outliers. Outliers are common among nearly all statistics, your study being one of them. Just because you find outliers does not mean the statistics are fallible. "Just because Yao Ming, an asian basketball player for the Houston Rockets falls out of the bell curve following the trend of the average Asian man's height, does not mean the statistics on the average height of Asian men is fallible.

So again, I tell you, that you took your statistics from an unreliable source.

Spoiler

I agree John Tanton is partisan, but the statistics provided by the CIS are not, not to mention the claims of him being alt-right or a white nationalist is is coming from the biased left who disagree with his stances. NyTimes, the Daily Beast, the Washington post, etc. are all left leaning media outlets, so quoting them claiming someone on the right is a nationalist or is a member of the alt-right is as credible as quoting the Redstate claiming Obama is a Muslim apologist or a socialist.

And just because you have right wing media or alt-right media defending CIS does not automatic make CIS alt-right. That's guilt by association. It's the same as claiming Hillary Clinton as being a homophobe because of her associate with Saudi Arabia, or claiming Donald Trump is a racist because of his support by the KKK. So to discredit CIS as an organization because of its creation by a partisan entity doesn't make sense. Oddly enough, members of the research board for CIS, such as Dr. Steven Camarota have written articles for left leaning media sources such as the washington post, and the NYtimes, the same source the cites John Tanton as being an "Anti-immigration Crusader"

You must be registered for see links

Since the CIS has ties to a partisan entity, I'll cite the Pew Research Center which is notoriously unbiased. According to them,
"The U.S. civilian workforce included 8 million unauthorized immigrants in 2014, accounting for 5% of those who were working or were unemployed and looking for work"

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

Of those 8 million, they make up 26% of the farming work force, 15% of the construction, 9% percent of the production, 6% of transportation, and 5% of the civilian labor force, which can all be considered unskilled jobs. Unlike the CIS, the PRS provided stats on illegal immigrants working in the skilled (professional) work force; "Among unauthorized immigrant workers, 6% held management jobs in 2014, compared with 15% of U.S.-born workers who did. An additional 8% were in professional occupations, compared with 22% of U.S.-born workers. Sales and office support occupations employed 13% of unauthorized immigrant workers, compared with 25% of U.S.-born workers who held these types of jobs."

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

With the PSR's and the CIS's national studies, which both follow a parallel trend, re-crediting the CIS, there's enough evidence to justify blame of job loss on illegal immigration.

I'm not even gonna tease the idea of debating you on this.

If you want to continue to warrant using an anti-immigration website for your argument against immigration, then go right ahead. I'm just gonna ignore it.

The suggestion of granting amnesty when it comes to dealing with long standing illegal immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for over a decade, is a more reasonable argument. Although, I disagree with rewarding illegals, who've managed to stay out of the social services radar for 10 plus years, with amnesty. The logic behind not deporting illegals who have been residence of the U.S. for 10+ years makes as much sense as letting a serial murderer get off the hook because the people he killed died decades ago.

You're comparing a serial killer to an illegal immigrant.......I'm just ignore this incredibly flawed and dissolute analogy and pretend like you didn't say that.

Amnesty is a better option than deportation. So yeah, if there's a better option in between, then I'm all ears.

I'm not against regulation, just not the most extreme and senseless course of action.

The problem with your solution is that the illegal immigrants who fit the criteria of being long standing residence will always be a constant, new illegal immigrants will be coming into the country, year after year, and eventually, they too will arrive at the 10 year mark of the residence in the U.S. Granting amnesty and citizenship grants a solution for illegal immigrants, but ignores immigration law, and the damage done to the job market and the U.S.'s infrastructure. It's granting a happy ending after the damage is done, only because the damage is done.

They're humans, not bacteria. People shouldn't be treated less human just because they're from another country.

They want the same thing as everyone else, just live a better life. If you think that's so wrong and you want to keep blaming immigrants for substantial economic problems, then I don't know what to say.

It just seems to me like you want to find blame on them in order to justify your position.

Droughts cannot and do not account for the reasoning behind the mass migration of over 4 million Syrian Refugees.
I'd like to quote this comment I found under the first article in reaction to what was stated;
"So, a good rain could have stopped all this?

What influence it may have had was absolutely inconsequential compared to the real stressors, like ethnic tensions, economic inequality, brutal dictatorship by a minority, etc.

If it's otherwise; then we all should expect some bad upheaval in drought-stricken California soon."
With that being said, I don't believe droughts being a significant factor of mass Muslim immigration from Syria is a substantial claim.

Yes, droughts are real stressors and it did play a big role in the civil unrest which caused the civil war.

Water is a commodity in that region.

There are currently water wars between India and the Middle East. That's how bad it is.

On top of that you're talking about a region that is so hot that it is predicted that within a decade or so, the Middle East will be uninhabitable to humans.

Regardless, religion has nothing to do with the war apart from ISIS taking advantage of the chaos and moving into Syria and they're losing bad.

The refugees the U.S. has taken are mostly made up of children, women, and eldery. So with that said, I fail to see the imminent threat from the refugees in the U.S.

What the E.U. did was stupid. They simply let everyone in. And just like my stance with illegal immigrants, I am totally for regulations, just not senseless ones.

I don't believe violence in this situation is ever justified. You look at the civil rights movement, who had accomplished a larger feat of dismantling Jim Crow laws, along with granting blacks true equality by the law. That was all done with peaceful protest, in contrast to BLM, who burn down their own cities, towns, local businesses, and harass and beat innocent bystanders because they're white, costing millions of tax dollars in repairs ALL in the name of social justice.

The problem with BLM is partly to do with the riots, but mostly to do with the purpose of the riots. I already know that BLM stands on the false premise of the government and law enforcement being systematically racist, so I believe they have no reason to riot, yet alone to protest, but the problem with BLM is that they're unorganized, as you stated before. It is a movement with no method to achieving something that has already been accomplished.

Never said violence was justified.

Well what's your point?

That doesn't change the fact that there is systematic oppression and police brutality.

I see more people talking about BLM violence than what actually caused that violence to erupt. It's a ****ing joke and a distraction, just like with many pressing issues.

People don't want to talk about the real issues, and instead create scapegoats.

The point of bringing up Cultural Marxism is to bring awareness to an extremist sect of the left that has been festering and growing for far too long, and that needs to come to an end. Note, there is a difference between identifying as left leaning on the political spectrum and being a cultural Marxist. Also note, the end goal of cultural Marxism is not economic communism and has nothing to do with economic communism, but follows the same theory as communism and tries to achieve social equality.

There is a difference between being a liberal on the left and being a cultural Marxist. Its as simple as the difference between believing men and women should be treated equal, and believing women are oppressed and everything between men and women should be equal.

Extreme sect of the left? Are these leftists calling for a violent coup that I have not heard of?

You're worried about the extreme sect of the left when a good majority of Trump supporters were straight up saying they were going to have a revolution if Trump loses and now you have Neo-Nazi groups calling Trump their savior and hate crimes have spiked.


Wanting a fair and just system where people are not discriminated by color, nationality, or gender......that's not extreme.

Creating laws which help enable people who have a disadvantage to eventually get to the same level as everyone else is not extreme.


Anyways I'm done arguing this. It's getting tiresome and I really don't care anymore.

So I'll let you have the last word on this.

 

[kimb]

So again, I tell you, that you took your statistics from an unreliable source.



I'm not even gonna tease the idea of debating you on this.

If you want to continue to warrant using an anti-immigration website for your argument against immigration, then go right ahead. I'm just gonna ignore it.

DUDE, are you serious???? :elmo:

Did you read my comment at all? I acknowledge the fact that my initial source was flawed so I provided stats and charts from a completely different website. Did you ignore all that or not read it????????

Either that, or you're claiming that the PewResearch Center is biased. If so, please tell me how one of the largest source of non-partisan statistics based out of the western hemisphere is biased.

You're comparing a serial killer to an illegal immigrant.......I'm just ignore this incredibly flawed and dissolute analogy and pretend like you didn't say that.

Amnesty is a better option than deportation. So yeah, if there's a better option in between, then I'm all ears.

I'm not against regulation, just not the most extreme and senseless course of action.

The logic behind my analogy is not flawed. If a crime is forgivable over a lapse of time, any other crime should be forgivable over a lapse of time. Whether you consider murder to be a much more sever crime than illegal immigration is irrelevant. I could have made the analogy with a traffic ticket being pardoned because it was given several years ago, and the basis of crime being forgiven because of a lapse of time is still there.

They're humans, not bacteria. People shouldn't be treated less human just because they're from another country.

They want the same thing as everyone else, just live a better life. If you think that's so wrong and you want to keep blaming immigrants for substantial economic problems, then I don't know what to say.

It just seems to me like you want to find blame on them in order to justify your position.

Now you're delving in to feelings and emotions, "people shouldn't be treated less human..." again, an ethical malpractice used to ignore facts and evidence and appeal to ethics. This is a common tactic used to shame the opposition for holding certain opinions.

And let me just tell you, you're failing at the shame game, My parents are both immigrants from the Caribbean, and came to the U.S. (legally) to find a better life. They didn't take short cuts, and they didn't have the money to go through the filing process as quickly as most people do. They worked hard to save their money and to travel to the U.S. to find a better life. So please, don't try to guilt trip me on illegals.

Yes, droughts are real stressors and it did play a big role in the civil unrest which caused the civil war.

Water is a commodity in that region.

There are currently water wars between India and the Middle East. That's how bad it is.

On top of that you're talking about a region that is so hot that it is predicted that within a decade or so, the Middle East will be uninhabitable to humans.

Claiming the drought was an issue and claiming the only issue was the drought, are two different claims. As long as you acknowledge the fact that Mass Muslim immigration was largely in part due to civil unrest caused by the Islamic state and Muslim extremist, then we are on the same page. You're trying to divert attention to one of the major issues behind mass Muslim immigration, being Islam. This is a form of cultural Marxism.

Regardless, religion has nothing to do with the war apart from ISIS taking advantage of the chaos and moving into Syria and they're losing bad.

Not once have I mentioned anything about a war. I only speak on mass Muslim immigration.

The refugees the U.S. has taken are mostly made up of children, women, and eldery. So with that said, I fail to see the imminent threat from the refugees in the U.S.

This is intellectually disingenuous. You're aware that the U.S. did not take in any male migrants, then try to claim there's no issue with Mass Muslim immigration into the U.S. You're saying because the 10,000 women, children, and elderly (the most nonthreatening demographic in every war, ever) has not caused any issues, that we should then open the floodgates to all refugees into the U.S.? No, that logic is not going to slide by me, it can't.

Also, you cherry pick the smallest migrant group of 10,000, with no men, to try and claim Mass Muslim immigration is not an issue. When you take a look at the recent terrorist attacks, acts of violents committed against natives, and rapes that take place in Western European countries such as Germany, you can see how you're trying to make one of the largest issues of 2016 seem like a cake walk.

What the E.U. did was stupid. They simply let everyone in. And just like my stance with illegal immigrants, I am totally for regulations, just not senseless ones.

I agree

Never said violence was justified.

"But that's not to say riots happen without reason. When people are ignored for so long, violence eventually spurs."
You're either justifying the violence or you're simply stating that riots are violent, which is stating the obvious, making it a non-argument.

Well what's your point?

That doesn't change the fact that there is systematic oppression and police brutality.

I see more people talking about BLM violence than what actually caused that violence to erupt. It's a ****ing joke and a distraction, just like with many pressing issues.

People don't want to talk about the real issues, and instead create scapegoats.

I'm getting more and more irritated as I read on into your reply. It seems like you've skimmed over the entirely of my comment, and typed your opinion without referring to anything I stated whatsoever. Either that or your unintentionally making lazy arguments. I stated the fact that there is no systematic oppression or race based police brutality, and that BLM have yet to provide the evidence of such claims aside from a minute amount of unarmed shootings of minorities, a majority of which are justified.

I'll say it now, and I'll say it again, Black Lives Matter has no justification in the existence of their movement, substantiated by evidence. Please prove me otherwise.

Extreme sect of the left? Are these leftists calling for a violent coup that I have not heard of?

"Extreme sect of the right (alt-right)? Are these conservatives calling for a violent coup that I have not heard of?"

Stop with the elementary logic. Extremist does not equate to violent. Westboro Baptist Church is extremist, but because they haven't called for the blood of ex. homosexuals yet, they shouldn't be considered violent? Extremism in an ideology is found it is beliefs and it's actions.

You're worried about the extreme sect of the left when a good majority of Trump supporters were straight up saying they were going to have a revolution if Trump loses and now you have Neo-Nazi groups calling Trump their savior and hate crimes have spiked.

This is a red-herring at best. I'm concerned about all extremist groups, so stop trying to split this into the "us vs them" (left vs right) dichotomy, that the left followed, causing Donald Trump to win the election. I've acknowledged the alt-right as a race hating, extremist group before, both in our discussion and outside of it. I don't care about left vs right, all I care about is the truth. I've even made a thread, showing my disgust for the alt-right on this forum. I'll leave a link in hopes that you'll stop bringing up the alt-right, as if I'm giving them some sort of pass. The alt-right is as bad as the cultural Marxist, it's just that this discussion is not about the alt-right. I'm trying to stay on topic.

You must be registered for see links

Wanting a fair and just system where people are not discriminated by color, nationality, or gender......that's not extreme.

Creating laws which help enable people who have a disadvantage to eventually get to the same level as everyone else is not extreme.

Creating laws which give people advantages to get an an equal level is communism, but socially, and politically. Have you read any of Karl Marx's books at all? The fact that you do not believe it is an extreme makes you a cultural marxist. You believe in giving people advantages based on the fact that they are not succeeding, not based on merit or hard work.
You (must) believe in taxing the wealthy at a higher rate because they are wealthy, which goes against the core principles of capitalism. You (must) believe in police officers turning a blind eye to crime and high crime areas in inner cities, because doing so would target minorities. You (must) believe in race and gender based quotas, where all positions of power must be held by the same amount of races and genders in order to be considered equal and not racist. You (must) believe that mis-pronouning a person who not identifies as one of the 110 manufactured genders, but also changes their gender on a daily basis, should be seen as hate speech, which is held in the same regard to holocaust deniers, and should be punished through corporal means. You (must) believe that the religion of Islam is not to be criticized, regardless of its laws, mandates, and barbaric culture, while religions such as Christianity can not only be criticized, but made mockery of. And you (must) believe all this is justified in the name of equality, because its not equality of opportunity that you are concerned about, but equality of outcome.

Anyways I'm done arguing this. It's getting tiresome and I really don't care anymore.

So I'll let you have the last word on this.

Basing off your closing statements, and your ignorance to problems caused by illegal immigration, muslim migrants, and BLM, who you cite as being violent and disorganized, are in fact in favor of cultural Marxism. You'd rather not hold groups accountable for their actions because you believe they are a minority, and in the theory of Cultural Marxism, being a minority equates to being oppressed. You believe in giving out hand outs and unfair advantages to those you consider oppressed or disadvantaged, ignoring that these hand outs come at the cost of those who do not fit into the oppressed demographic.

 

[slimreaper]

DUDE, are you serious???? :elmo:

Did you read my comment at all? I acknowledge the fact that my initial source was flawed so I provided stats and charts from a completely different website. Did you ignore all that or not read it????????

Either that, or you're claiming that the PewResearch Center is biased. If so, please tell me how one of the largest source of non-partisan statistics based out of the western hemisphere is biased.





The logic behind my analogy is not flawed. If a crime is forgivable over a lapse of time, any other crime should be forgivable over a lapse of time. Whether you consider murder to be a much more sever crime than illegal immigration is irrelevant. I could have made the analogy with a traffic ticket being pardoned because it was given several years ago, and the basis of crime being forgiven because of a lapse of time is still there.



Now you're delving in to feelings and emotions, "people shouldn't be treated less human..." again, an ethical malpractice used to ignore facts and evidence and appeal to ethics. This is a common tactic used to shame the opposition for holding certain opinions.

And let me just tell you, you're failing at the shame game, My parents are both immigrants from the Caribbean, and came to the U.S. (legally) to find a better life. They didn't take short cuts, and they didn't have the money to go through the filing process as quickly as most people do. They worked hard to save their money and to travel to the U.S. to find a better life. So please, don't try to guilt trip me on illegals.


Claiming the drought was an issue and claiming the only issue was the drought, are two different claims. As long as you acknowledge the fact that Mass Muslim immigration was largely in part due to civil unrest caused by the Islamic state and Muslim extremist, then we are on the same page. You're trying to divert attention to one of the major issues behind mass Muslim immigration, being Islam. This is a form of cultural Marxism.



Not once have I mentioned anything about a war. I only speak on mass Muslim immigration.


This is intellectually disingenuous. You're aware that the U.S. did not take in any male migrants, then try to claim there's no issue with Mass Muslim immigration into the U.S. You're saying because the 10,000 women, children, and elderly (the most nonthreatening demographic in every war, ever) has not caused any issues, that we should then open the floodgates to all refugees into the U.S.? No, that logic is not going to slide by me, it can't.

Also, you cherry pick the smallest migrant group of 10,000, with no men, to try and claim Mass Muslim immigration is not an issue. When you take a look at the recent terrorist attacks, acts of violents committed against natives, and rapes that take place in Western European countries such as Germany, you can see how you're trying to make one of the largest issues of 2016 seem like a cake walk.


I agree




"But that's not to say riots happen without reason. When people are ignored for so long, violence eventually spurs."
You're either justifying the violence or you're simply stating that riots are violent, which is stating the obvious, making it a non-argument.


I'm getting more and more irritated as I read on into your reply. It seems like you've skimmed over the entirely of my comment, and typed your opinion without referring to anything I stated whatsoever. Either that or your unintentionally making lazy arguments. I stated the fact that there is no systematic oppression or race based police brutality, and that BLM have yet to provide the evidence of such claims aside from a minute amount of unarmed shootings of minorities, a majority of which are justified.

I'll say it now, and I'll say it again, Black Lives Matter has no justification in the existence of their movement, substantiated by evidence. Please prove me otherwise.






"Extreme sect of the right (alt-right)? Are these conservatives calling for a violent coup that I have not heard of?"

Stop with the elementary logic. Extremist does not equate to violent. Westboro Baptist Church is extremist, but because they haven't called for the blood of ex. homosexuals yet, they shouldn't be considered violent? Extremism in an ideology is found it is beliefs and it's actions.


This is a red-herring at best. I'm concerned about all extremist groups, so stop trying to split this into the "us vs them" (left vs right) dichotomy, that the left followed, causing Donald Trump to win the election. I've acknowledged the alt-right as a race hating, extremist group before, both in our discussion and outside of it. I don't care about left vs right, all I care about is the truth. I've even made a thread, showing my disgust for the alt-right on this forum. I'll leave a link in hopes that you'll stop bringing up the alt-right, as if I'm giving them some sort of pass. The alt-right is as bad as the cultural Marxist, it's just that this discussion is not about the alt-right. I'm trying to stay on topic.

You must be registered for see links

Creating laws which give people advantages to get an an equal level is communism, but socially, and politically. Have you read any of Karl Marx's books at all? The fact that you do not believe it is an extreme makes you a cultural marxist. You believe in giving people advantages based on the fact that they are not succeeding, not based on merit or hard work.
You (must) believe in taxing the wealthy at a higher rate because they are wealthy, which goes against the core principles of capitalism. You (must) believe in police officers turning a blind eye to crime and high crime areas in inner cities, because doing so would target minorities. You (must) believe in race and gender based quotas, where all positions of power must be held by the same amount of races and genders in order to be considered equal and not racist. You (must) believe that mis-pronouning a person who not identifies as one of the 110 manufactured genders, but also changes their gender on a daily basis, should be seen as hate speech, which is held in the same regard to holocaust deniers, and should be punished through corporal means. You (must) believe that the religion of Islam is not to be criticized, regardless of its laws, mandates, and barbaric culture, while religions such as Christianity can not only be criticized, but made mockery of. And you (must) believe all this is justified in the name of equality, because its not equality of opportunity that you are concerned about, but equality of outcome.


Basing off your closing statements, and your ignorance to problems caused by illegal immigration, muslim migrants, and BLM, who you cite as being violent and disorganized, are in fact in favor of cultural Marxism. You'd rather not hold groups accountable for their actions because you believe they are a minority, and in the theory of Cultural Marxism, being a minority equates to being oppressed. You believe in giving out hand outs and unfair advantages to those you consider oppressed or disadvantaged, ignoring that these hand outs come at the cost of those who do not fit into the oppressed demographic.

it's this that makes liberals particularly hard to argue with for the most part. They tend to argue on the basis of their own feelings rather the point the argument was intending to make. It makes it really frustrating.


I wish we could all just argue on the basis of the merit of the argument rather than shooting something down because of how you feel about the analogy made.

 

[BlacLord™]

Jordan Peterson draws heavy influence from philosophy and Psychoanalytic theory.

Deserves a hearty belly laugh.

 

[Chikombo]

I'm not pc but honestly there are better things to complain about than people being too nice.

 

[kimb]

Jordan Peterson draws heavy influence from philosophy and Psychoanalytic theory.

Deserves a hearty belly laugh.

Argumentum ad lapidem

 

[slimreaper]

I'm not pc but honestly there are better things to complain about than people being too nice.

why people are complaining about is, it is a form of control people are exerting on others.

If you control people's language you control how they think


But they're trying to frame that argument as you did here.


[video=youtube;A_EA7EbagNQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_EA7EbagNQ[/video]


here's a perfect example of the argument framing i'm talking about. The dude on the right doesn't understand what ben shapiro is saying and is trying to make propaganda innocent

 

[Chikombo]

why people are complaining about is, it is a form of control people are exerting on others.

If you control people's language you control how they think


But they're trying to frame that argument as you did here.


[video=youtube;A_EA7EbagNQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_EA7EbagNQ[/video]


here's a perfect example of the argument framing i'm talking about. The dude on the right doesn't understand what ben shapiro is saying and is trying to make propaganda innocent

I don't want to frame anything. It just doesn't seem like a big deal to me but If it is I accept that.

Look it's annoying and dumb I just ignore it, sometimes when people complain about this they hide extreme opinions so I understand both sides, you are not a bad person just cus you are not super nice to people, you can be super nice but also a bad person. Sometimes I wonder if Nazism was less extreme than people make it out to be, now in our time there is predejuice against racism and nazism and everything but before did that even exist?
We think it's ok for Django to kill slavers in a movie but in that time would it really have been considered acceptable? Maybe norms change so when people argue against pc culture or whatever I wonder if they are really hiding their own bias because bias doesn't have to seem extreme, at some point maybe slavery seemed natural.

But I don't support pc and if people say it destroys studies and when even people of color say they don't like it when people are too nice and can't take jokes etc then of course I'm ok with that, that has never been an issue for me. For me I take for granted that we have freedom of speech and people can speak their mind without having to worry about being called racists so it seems irrelevant for me to even complain about it, just like it seems irrelevant to even debate if there is a God since it's so obvious there isn't one.

 

[kimb]

For your stats you posted on muslims like the ones you did of African Americans highlights the ignorance unaccountablity and apathy when they discuss these issues. First off your own stat shows the majority of Muslims are against suicide attacks also if you cared to do the research you would know it's sinful to do so for one committing suicide and secondly not just killing innocent people, but civilians that aren't even part of the battle.

My stats show that a majority of Muslims are against suicide attacks, yes, so what's your point? My intentions to show how a significant amount of Muslims are in favor of suicide attacks, not to say all Muslims or a majority of Muslims are in favor of suicide attacks. 20%-30% in favor and occasionally in favor is quite a significant amount. I've also done my research on Islam, I've read through the Quran, and because I've done my research on Islam I'm aware that the sin of suicide is forgiven under the condition of martyrdom. Here's an excerpt from the Al Baqarah; "169. But do not think of those that have been slain in God’s cause a dead. Nay, they are alive! With their Sustainer have they their sustenance,"

"154. And say not of those who are slain in God’s cause, “ They are dead”: nay, they are alive , but you perceive it not.
This verse encourages martyrdom in the way of Allah and praises it laudably, saying that it is not death, rather it is life - and what a life indeed! Death in the way of Allah is a distinction which is desirable - not a thing to dislike or fear. By saying that the martyrs are alive, actually means that they have not become extinct or have perished. In commonly language death is the opposite of life and with death one becomes extinct. In this context, the martyrs are alive."

It is passages like these that allow Muslims to commit suicide attacks and other atrocities with no fear of repercussion. If you commit suicide in the name of Allah or in defense of Islam, you become a martyr and all your sins are forgiven, according to the Quran.

Also issue about immigration in this issue you brand all these immigrants with these criminal activities,

No one says all, no one has ever said all, at least any rational person, including myself. Anyone who projects sweeping generalizations of any group the Size of Islam is a bigot, but neither I, nor Trump has said all.

but if you don't want immigration of these people than should you not hold accountable countries that's trying to destabilize these countries for their own agenda and it's no secret that the u.s. funnels weapons to these fighters and even these different regimes propping up dictators.

There's reports that the initial attacks of the Syrian war was due to outside intervention. Instead of people acknowledging this we turn it to Islam is the problem discussion if you actually look at what these extremists say they site political reasons for what they are doing, also people say scripture sites these people to indiscriminately kill which is false and muslims are the ones that are predominately killed, but they want paint these guys as the true muslims and representatives of Islam. Also a fact that is never said if you look at the statistics for domestic terrorism the biggest group is right wing groups while muslims that do terror acts aren't even a handful, but a whole group gets the blame.

There's hardly any people that care to actually really look into the issues it's usually to reaffirm what they think and genuinely want solutions people are superficial and reactionary to practically all issues

I've provide stats, we've seen the terrorist attacks, we've seen the thousands rapes and murders that take place OUTSIDE of the middle east, and still you bend backwards to defend the religion of peace that is Islam. Both you and Lightbringer constantly try to take attention away from the issue that Islam presents and focus on other issues that I already agree with and make no argument against, but it's almost as if whenever I approach the idea of the religion of Islam having the slightest affair of this catastrophic situation, you both go on damage control and divert away Islam, and focus on other factors of the situation that I already acknowledge to be true or are extremely insignificant.

I am not saying All Muslims are terrorist, I'm not arguing that America, the government powers in the middle east, or droughts had nothing to do with the Mass Muslim immigration issue, and I am not arguing that Muslims should be banned from the U.S., I'm saying that Islam and Muslim terrorist groups are a large factor as a cause of Mass Muslim immigration, I'm arguing that Islamic culture has been shown to be a violent, barbaric, and has negative effects on western culture, and I am arguing that a temporary ban until a vetting process is put in place is not the most insane idea seeing as how country's like Germany have suffered from several recent terrorist attacks enacted by Muslim refugees, and countless amounts of crime such as rape, theft, and murder.

 

[Sagebee]

My stats show that a majority of Muslims are against suicide attacks, yes, so what's your point? My intentions to show how a significant amount of Muslims are in favor of suicide attacks, not to say all Muslims or a majority of Muslims are in favor of suicide attacks. 20%-30% in favor and occasionally in favor is quite a significant amount. I've also done my research on Islam, I've read through the Quran, and because I've done my research on Islam I'm aware that the sin of suicide is forgiven under the condition of martyrdom. Here's an excerpt from the Al Baqarah; "169. But do not think of those that have been slain in God’s cause a dead. Nay, they are alive! With their Sustainer have they their sustenance,"

"154. And say not of those who are slain in God’s cause, “ They are dead”: nay, they are alive , but you perceive it not.
This verse encourages martyrdom in the way of Allah and praises it laudably, saying that it is not death, rather it is life - and what a life indeed! Death in the way of Allah is a distinction which is desirable - not a thing to dislike or fear. By saying that the martyrs are alive, actually means that they have not become extinct or have perished. In commonly language death is the opposite of life and with death one becomes extinct. In this context, the martyrs are alive."

It is passages like these that allow Muslims to commit suicide attacks and other atrocities with no fear of repercussion. If you commit suicide in the name of Allah or in defense of Islam, you become a martyr and all your sins are forgiven, according to the Quran.

First point your own statistic shows that the vast majority of these countries only a small percentage think it's acceptable and the countries with the highest percentage are the countries where these conflicts going on.

Online you hear people say these countries need to be wiped out bombed and just based on there muslim do we hold these people as the representative of the whole, instead at looking what the heart of issue is people want to manipulate the information for their own purposes which I'll assume your doing unintentionally.

But the hadith you posted are a clear example of this first I can almost guarantee these quotes pulled from some anti Islam site then these same people will say I've studied Islam. No you just searched for whatever can affirm your bias instead of looking at the facts of the matter.

The hadith is talking about people who go fight for GOD if you look what they define as a martyr it's not always even in context of war but is defined as those who struggle in the way of GOD. Also if you look at the totality of the ruling on war and conduct you will see they forbid attacking civilians, woman children old people, generally anyone whose not participating in the fight. Not to attack others who aren't fighting sacred areas and not even to chop down trees for no good reason. If a soldier says he quits in the middle of fighting your ordered not to harm this individual.

If you guys really cared about the truth you would know this but like these muslims that twist the text for their own goals and tbh they more so ignore it than twist those who use it to critizicise do the same thing.

No one says all, no one has ever said all, at least any rational person, including myself. Anyone who projects sweeping generalizations of any group the Size of Islam is a bigot, but neither I, nor Trump has said all.


I've provide stats, we've seen the terrorist attacks, we've seen the thousands rapes and murders that take place OUTSIDE of the middle east, and still you bend backwards to defend the religion of peace that is Islam. Both you and Lightbringer constantly try to take attention away from the issue that Islam presents and focus on other issues that I already agree with and make no argument against, but it's almost as if whenever I approach the idea of the religion of Islam having the slightest affair of this catastrophic situation, you both go on damage control and divert away Islam, and focus on other factors of the situation that I already acknowledge to be true or are extremely insignificant.

I am not saying All Muslims are terrorist, I'm not arguing that America, the government powers in the middle east, or droughts had nothing to do with the Mass Muslim immigration issue, and I am not arguing that Muslims should be banned from the U.S., I'm saying that Islam and Muslim terrorist groups are a large factor as a cause of Mass Muslim immigration, I'm arguing that Islamic culture has been shown to be a violent, barbaric, and has negative effects on western culture, and I am arguing that a temporary ban until a vetting process is put in place is not the most insane idea seeing as how country's like Germany have suffered from several recent terrorist attacks enacted by Muslim refugees, and countless amounts of crime such as rape, theft, and murder.

In this specific point we are discussing is muslim immigration I said if people want to take issue with muslim immigration fine, but hold accountable the root causes of why these immigration occur.

I even say you take issue to domestic terrorism than take issue to the vast majority of domestic terrorism that goes ignored. But like I said earlier like all the other topics I brought up that got ignored by you it's not about truth or good it's comes down to blaming Islam for the issue or pushing some other belief or agenda.

Again if you want to be fair and accountable address all the points I made in original post in response to you.

And to restate my initial post for this specific topic Islam doesn't condone attacking of civilians and suicide is a major sin, the root of these conflicts are political not religious. And you have concern for immigration hold accountable the causes of it. You take issue to domestic terrorism then take issue to the leading offenders and causes of it. Pointing this out isn't bending over backwards it's stating facts.