Originally Posted by
wibblefox
That anything can be assumed without basis thus anything can be concluded, but it's a frivolous endeavour to try and talk to someone who begins by asserting that they are correct.
The same could be said about you.
Only if you don't believe in the sovereignty of nations.
Not at all, if you actively deny all refuge seekers that is an action, the sovereignty of nations doesnt change that at all
Because Turkey is in the west but Syria is not. Therefore any discussion about the west would naturally include Turkey and not Syria. I should think this is a simple and logical idea. The topic was the west, thus we talk about the west. If the topic was "all countries" then we would talk about all countries.
We shouldn't pick which countries are inside or outside the scope of discussion based on whether or not they support a conclusion. I don't like that you are so happy to remove any country that doesn't fit your narrative from the equation, you are too eager to feed your bias and validate your conclusion at every turn.
Given we are having a discussion on the side about whether Turkey is or isnt part of the West, and its widely regarded as not being part of the West (you still havent provided any sources at all of credible sources grouping Turkey as part of the West or explained why you think its part of the West) that seems like a pretty ridiculous assumption to make.
I would have easily accepted Turkey had you not ruled out all the countries in similar states to Turkey that dont fit your narrative. That was a very hypocritical paragraph
Again, no it isn't.
Apparently I was wrong when I said "Well Turkey is being negotiated for both EEA and EU, and if you use that as your definition then Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and Switzerland are NOT western, a position that surely even you will admit is incorrect."
You sure are sticking to your guns with this idea that Statistics Norway is the arbiter of what is and isn't western. Even if there was no reason to think they are in the first place, and if their supposed definition (reminder once again that they never called X countries the west) is logically nonsense.
Explain why that set of countries was grouped together please.
Yeah you were wrong, that implies it was applying for both EU and EEA independently, which they arent.
Im not saying that they are at all, can you please show me where I said statistics Norway is "the true arbiter" of what is and isnt Wester, or are you just arguing nonsense lines of argument which you know arent true because you cant find anything to back up your claim that "most of Europe sees Turkey as part of the West"
Not sure what point you are trying to make but if you agree then you may as well just say so.
Or are you going to claim that in actuality Germany is also the true arbiter of what is and isn't western?
(Please don't)
I didnt even mention Germany, you really are just arguing about random nonsensical lines arent you? lol
This argument is so obnoxious. Again I wonder why you are pushing this idea that Statistics Norway is capable of defining what is and isn't the west.
You don't ignore countries just because "the data isn't important". They do have the data on those 4 countries, how about you actually query their database yourself next time instead of making bullshit assumptions just to suit your opinion. it's completely unrelated to why they classified the data the way they did.p
Since there is no actual definition anyone is capable of defining what they see as the West. A reliable organisation even more so.
Ok, explain why they grouped the countries as they did.
Pahahahahahaha that data backs up what I said, the numbers are all 0s in the case of San Marino, a series of 0s and 3s for Andorra, and nothing exceeding 120 in the other 2 countries, negligible when compared with the 67275 immigrants then get a year
"I stopped seeing her altogether" - do you think this implies that you later go see her? Or do you think that perhaps the author stopped seeing her altogether.
The clause "He does want to stop muslim immigration altogether." is non-finite (stop being infinitive), there is absolutely no reason to interpret this statement as transient.
When I asked you "Are you purposefully using misleading language?" that was a serious question. Either what you are saying is not what you mean, or you are doing this on purpose. If it's a mistake, then fine, I know what you are trying to say even though it's not at all what you said. If it's on purpose, just stop.
Depends on the context, it the sentence could also mean he is unable to see her at all (hidden from view), and therefore there is no reason to believe he wouldnt later be able to see her.
You kept saying things like "all Muslims" and "stop altogether" etc, projecting your opinion that Trump is racist and your opinion that he won't ever lift the ban if it is placed.
The policy is as stated in the official statement that the ban is on Muslim immigration and that it is a temporary measure. Your interpretation is the effect of your bias either inhibiting your ability to read and understand, or perverting your ability to discuss the topic. I would guess probably the later since you have admitted that you do know that it is only a temporary measure regarding Muslim immigrants, but you continue to use loaded language and incorrect interpretations.
You are not thinking clearly, either because of your bias or because of malice. Hopefully with introspection you can identify your language, and continue forward with a cool and clear head.
He is stopping all Muslims from immigrating, thats not a projection. Whether its permanent or not doesnt change the fact that he is stopping muslim immigration altogether for a period of time (which is undefined in length as well).
You clearly knew what I meant and yet you decide to argue against my paragraph as if I had meant "altogether" as permanency, which it doesnt mean. That is a straw man fallacy.
Please argue against the same thing but against its actual meaning, not against what you decided it would be easier to see it as.
Edit: Since youre clearly just going to argue the language not the actual points as usual Ill clarify which is the important part of the paragraph I want you to address.
The point Im trying to make is that as its written there the rule is negative discrimination against muslims in general because it doesnt matter where the muslim is from, whether the country is stable or not, they are barred from migration because they are assumed a terrorist threat. Assuming all muslims a terrorist threat no matter what their situation is strikes me as derogatory, and not a policy that could well negatively affect the lives of many innocent muslims as well as a portion of the public's opinion on people of that relgion.
In addition, I don't think this is defensible by arguing; he hadnt viewed it in that way and he made the adjustment to the proposal because the new version was his intention all along, because during a presidential campaign I would certainly expect the candidates to think through their proposals before they make them public, if they don't I don't feel safe about them thinking through their proposals as president either.
Again, dont argue against the language, argue against the point being made.
Last edited by SmallBowl; Aug 16, 2016 at 01:23 PM.