|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 29, 2015 23:38:09 GMT 1
No, you've got even more deeply confused than you already were. The challenge is to you, madame, to show where I started it. You've had to go back over two years before you can find even the slimmest possible example. And I've already answered you on that one, thankyou. I don't need to. You're the one complaining about it, remember? I don't give a toss. I've merely informed you - if you want a polite reasonable conversation, be polite and reasonable and you'll have no other sort of response from me. That's a fact. If you disagree, provide the evidence. We've seen that you cannot. Therefore, stfu, move on, and remember to be polite and reasonable, because you're too delicate to be rude to people who can answer back. Okay? This is good advice, flower. Listen up. My evidence that you're completely barmy? Seriously? Really? You want me to list the ludicrous assertions you've tried to argue over the past few years? Really? No, forget it - even you can't be that shameless; even if you are, I'm simply not that cruel. You're a joke, madame. Grow up, ffs. Or fuck off, I don't care. Just stop wasting everyone's time. This is a messageboard about science and related matters. You know fuck all about science, fair enough, or much else it would appear, but just stop getting into everyone else's way.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 30, 2015 11:54:38 GMT 1
Mrsonde's squirming is getting worse. The issue, of course, is that mrsonde claimed that he only gave insults (and all agree that he has spouted many insults, which I have quoted and given links for) in response to prior insults given by me. But he continues to fail to show any prior insults; they are a figment of his imagination.
If this was a court case, with mrsonde charged with being offensive, then the prosecuting evidence is there for all to see. mrsonde's only (schoolboy) defence is "Well she started it". Asked to show where she started it, he is totally unable to produce any such instance. He would tell the court "I don't need to". He would be found guilty.
Ever been on a night out and, on the bus journey home, a dishevelled man in the seat opposite, rants at you incoherently, discharging beery breath?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 30, 2015 15:23:46 GMT 1
Mrsonde's squirming is getting worse. The issue, of course, is that mrsonde claimed that he only gave insults (and all agree that he has spouted many insults, which I have quoted and given links for) Huh? What links? And who are all these people who agree with you? More imaginary friends? That's right. You've finally understood something! I've told you, over and over - I'm not interested. This is a little obsession all of your own, dear. No one is interested - even your imaginary friends. Your rudeness? Nope. Here you are again, see? One day, a few years from now perhaps, it might finally sink in, and you're going to stop and start being "polite and reasonable" for once, and you'll finally discover that like an OCD sufferer you create your own upset. Just calm down, dear. Oh yeah? You just have to trawl back two years or so looking for it. "Daft bint" - oh my goodness, what a very rude man. A very rude man. What you've had to put up with all these years, you poor fragrant lady. No wonder you were provoked beyond all measure to come out with all those insults - the obnoxious lout desereved every one of them! "Daft bint"! In all my years on the bench...Take him down! It's not a "defence", you moron. It's information for you. Helpful advice. A kindly hand to a confused old lady who's wandered into the middle of the road. If you get so easily upset by being insulted, be polite yourself. See? Just listen, and ponder on't. Once again: I'm not interested. I'm not bothered. Understand? I don't care about your feeble attempts at insulting me; and I don't care that I sometimes respond and insult you. Okay? It's of no interest to me! Now, I have kindly taken the trouble to address your obsession, and asked you to find a single instance where you were insulted first, without provocation from you. You've had to go back two years to find such an alleged instance. And I've informed you - you deserved it, because you were being rude. Okay? I've done you that favour. As far as I'm concerned, I see absolutely no reason to indulge you further. Your illness is your illness - you deal with it.. Believe me, I have absolutely zero interest in your romantic life., and I doubt anyone else here has either.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 31, 2015 7:25:38 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Sept 2, 2015 11:30:19 GMT 1
Why does nearly every thread on this board turn into a spat between people?
I would have thought that illegal immigration was a subject so important that it deserved serious consideration. In my view it is beyond politics, and probably not resolvable.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 3, 2015 8:27:10 GMT 1
Because ONE person decided to throw around insults instead of discussing.
I agree it is important and I am willing to debate it with you. (On the other hand, since you say it is not resolvable, is there any point?).
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Sept 3, 2015 10:24:42 GMT 1
Because ONE person decided to throw around insults instead of discussing. I agree it is important and I am willing to debate it with you. (On the other hand, since you say it is not resolvable, is there any point?). I don't think I said it was NOT resolvable, I said it was probably not resolvable. Here is my take on it, and if this has already been said somewhere above, then I apologise. You have to distinguish between those genuinely seeking asylum and those who just want a better life. For far too long everyone who has come here has been called an asylum seeker by the hand wringing brigade. In my view an asylum seeker is a refugee, running away from persecution war famine and many other things. Someone in danger. Just because you don't like the government or indeed they don't like you does not make you a refugee. I feel desperately sorry for the people fleeing Syria. I don't feel the same about the thousands camped in Calais. They are already in a country where they will not be persecuted, and many of them are from countries where they would have been relatively safe if they had stayed, safe but poor maybe. Why I said it is probably not resolvable is that the word has gone out that if you can get over the border and into the EU then it is only a matter of time before you are allowed to stay in whatever country you choose. Pure weight of numbers makes the current situation virtually unmanageable. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what Cameron says, but in this case I think he is right. You tackle the problem at source and remove the reasons that people need (need not want) to leave say Syria. I saw a figure that it costs the UK government an average of £18000 pa for every refugee family coming here. To those that say immigrants give the UK a net gain, I say bullshit. Some do, but the majority don't. Multiply that 18K by the number of families that have come in say the last 3 or 4 years and that is an awful lot of money to spend on tacking the problem at source. How do you tackle the problems of Syria, or ISIS?. In my view you starve them of money, because it is money that buys the arms that they use too slaughter people. ISIS sell oil. So you make it an international crime to trade in that oil, and you rigorously enforce that. It will take time, but the first few traders that land up in jail would send the message out that it might be better to seek trade elsewhere. As for countries on the borders who for political ends chose to ignore that, well although I am a pacifist I see no reason why you cant bomb the roads, or the bridges, or the pipelines.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 4, 2015 8:58:08 GMT 1
If someone comes here from Syria, saying that they had been in a refugee camp in Lebanon for 2 years, and had come to UK because they could not go back to Syria because of the situation there, and had no real life in Lebanon, would you accept them as asylum seekers or would you call them economic migrants? I would say the latter; they have got asylum in Lebanon, they are coming to UK to seek a living. So they should be refused asylum, and sent back to Lebanon.
If the law is to mean anything, then it should be enforced. I am inclined to agree with the PM of Hungary, who has made a stand against people who are in his country illegally. To deal with the problem properly would require that these illegal immigrants should be deported back to where they came from, either Syria, or the refugee camps in Lebanon or Jordan etc. That would be a large and expensive operation, which would have to be conducted long term so that the message got through that Europe was not going to tolerate people coming here illegally.
Those coming from the refugee camps are, commonly, the more priveleged ones who are educated (many can speak quite reasonable English) and have access to funds to pay the smugglers large amounts of money. Most of the people in those camps are just being left to stew. I would like to see us provide sufficient aid so that the people there are given sufficient food and some opportunity for work. Those countries which are willing to take substantial numbers of refugees should go to the camps and hand out forms for people to apply to go to Europe, maybe for short term stays of perhaps a year. That way, there would be some hope for the people in the camps (not just the richer ones) and it should discourage those who would try to get to Europe by dangerous sea crossings.
I don't know the details but I wouldn't be surprised if much of the oil is sold via intermediaries in Iraq and neighbouring nations, individual middle men who it would be impossible for us to identify, arrest and convict. Still, if it can be said that ISIS own certain oilfields and refineries, then I am all for bombing them out.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 6, 2015 18:34:24 GMT 1
There isn't an "actual issue". You stroke yourself by being rude and insulting to people by using snide insinuation, and then get off by pretending to be self-righteously "polite and reasonable" when someone is more honest and direct in response, that's all.
And I gave you a perfectly adequate answer. I told you were a daft bint for exactly the same reason that had you screaming at Abacus that he was a FOOL, remember?
A link, from over two years ago. Already answered.
As I recall, you were asking over and over, but what is the scientific definition of "race"? I kept giving it to you. Instead of responding, you kept repeating, but what is "the scientific definition of race"? So I repeatedly asked you, what do you mean by "scientific definition", if this doesn't answer your criteria? You ignored it, and kept insisting, there is no "scientific defintion" of race, with some citation from a half-witted lefty cognitive relativist sociologist to prove your point. That's rudeness personified, madame - not only to me, but to the entire history of human rationality.
If you ask a question, listen to the response. If you don't agree with it, debate. Don't ignore the responses that are given to you and try to stuff your offensive ideology down people's throats. Otherwise, eventually, you'll deservedly be told to stfu.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 6, 2015 19:08:53 GMT 1
Why does nearly every thread on this board turn into a spat between people? It's not "this board". It's any board Jean and Fascinating post on. Beyond politics? A strange idea - difficult to know how to respond unless you specify what you mean by "politics". It seems to me a fairly clear political issue. Whether it's resolvable - again, depends on what you mean by a resolution, and who exactly is responsible for such a solution. The ground supposition of the Left is that we should all be internationalists - borders and immigration controls are an embarrasing hangover from the capitalist corrupt past. Along with that - anything foreigners suffer is ultimately down tot hat corrupt capitalist past, and directly our responsibility, usually. Any problem in the Middle East, or Africa, or Asia - our fault. Yes? This is a fair enough assessment, I think - I've had enough quasi-reasonable debates with Lefties to know this is the way they think. So - the problem may not be political, in itself, whatever that means. But before you can even address the issue, you first have to get over that thoroughly distorting perspective imposed on it by the Left.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 6, 2015 19:12:43 GMT 1
Because ONE person decided to throw around insults instead of discussing. Don;t be so hard on yourself. I've told you - I'm happy to throw around insults too, once you've started it.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 6, 2015 19:24:42 GMT 1
When the asylum rules were drawn up and agreed to, after the holocaust, this was understood. No one wanted the same thing to happen again, and everyone felt their share of Holocaust Guilt.
The people fleeing Syria cross countries where they are "safe", I think. "Countries". They might not be safe in their camps, agreed - but that's an infinitely more soluble problem, is it not?
Exactly. It's become another problem entirely, conflated with the "refugee" issue.
I agree Cameron is virtually the only major Western leader speaking any sense on this. But I don't agree that it's up to Britain to "tackle the problem at source". It's up to us, in relation with others, to help fund the refugee camps, in their appropriate places, no doubt. That's as far as our moral responsibility should stretch, I think.
And the real place for anyone's condemnation for this failure, as with the major problems in Palestine, lies with the UN.
In my view - you leave them to it. Harsh, perhaps - history is harsh. Peoples have to fight and struggle before they can reach stability. It's a long, bloody, violent process. We don't help by intefering, as far as I can see over my lifetime - on the contrary.
Conider this. They are it would seem by every estimate I've heard over three million Syrian men in refugee camps or attempting to emigrate into Europe. Most of them, given the demographic proportions of Arabs, are of fighting age. Now, in what Western country - or Eastern, for that matter - would it seem not reprehensible for three million men to flee their country when it's in a state of either civil war or external invasion? As a Brit, would you flee to Canada if a civil war erupted, or another country invaded? Or would you feel it your duty to fight for your country - either to defeind it from external aggresion, or perhaps to help overthrow a genocidal tyrant who's taken to murdering his own citizens? Bracket out the women and children for the moment, if you would. I'm talking about the majority of these Syrian refugees flowing into Germany - young, fit, healthy men. Three million at least of them. How long could Assad or anyone else survive in power if those men had chosen instead to fight for what they believed in? How long could ISIL have survived in Syria if a force of that size had united in repelling them?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 7, 2015 0:11:59 GMT 1
If the news media are to be believed, this is unlike previous civil wars. Both the ruling government and the insurgents appear to be attacking neutral civilians. If you don't approve of the Assad government, your only options are to sign up to a bunch of knuckledragging morons whose concept of law and order is even more tyrranical and illogical, or to leave the country. As always, it is the educated middle classes who are leaving, and thanks to modern technology and communications, they seem to be even more mobile than the Jews of 1930's Germany who galvanised the arts and sciences of the USA, or the Ugandan Asians whose children now run our hospitals.
"Unite and fight" calls are frankly bollocks. The civilians murdered by Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, et al, vastly outnumbered those doing the killing. Modern killing machinery and time are both on the side of the small, determined force of evil. Unite around what? What common cause binds a commercial lawyer to a supermarket manager and a sewage consultant? And who will supply the weapons?
Given the choice to fight in the rubble for either of two sides that despise and distrust you, or to set up a business in Europe, which would you choose?
You can't "bracket out the women and children". A man's first and last duty is to defend his family. The best weapons are the ones your enemy doesn't have and can't counter. If you have an exportable profession and a credit card, those are your best weapons.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 7, 2015 8:16:16 GMT 1
If there is no actual issue then what does mrsonde keep on posting about?
mrsonde said Contrary to mrsonde's implication, this is the first time that Abacus, and my alleged insult to him, have been mentioned in this discussion. mrsonde appears to be (after 4 months being unable to dream up any excuse) spiriting up the excuse that, in the same way that I insulted Abacus (and I'm not accepting or denying that I actually did insult Abacus), he had a right to insult me.
So mrsonde's implication is dishonest, and this new excuse of his is ridiculous; it doesn't justify his manifestly false assertion that he would only trade insults if they were fired at him first.
This is another dishonest assertion and another ridiculous excuse - and note, he provides no evidence to back up what he says. For a long time, he did not give a definition of race (except for the meaning of a competition between runners) though that did not stop him falsely stating that he had done. When he did, I politely addressed it. He had no reason to be insulting.
He started being insulting in this discussion, and it is beyond doubt that he was the first to do so, showing that his assertion, that he won't start insulting first, is false.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Sept 7, 2015 14:28:17 GMT 1
There is far too much to unpick here in the time I have available.
No, I don't agree that a refugee from the war in Syria living in a camp in Jordon has transformed himself into a migrant. He has sought refuge in Jordon, but in my view is still a refugee.
What I find most disturbing is the pictures over the last few days of the vast numbers trying to get from Serbia to Hungary and beyond. They are predominantly young, and predominantly male. The refugees I have seen in the past have pushed their aged relatives in handcarts and wheelbarrows over the mountains as family groups, seeking genuine refuge from persecution, whether that was Kurds fleeing in Turkey or others in war zones. I hate to be a doom merchant but I wonder just how many IS supporters or activists are mingled in with the thousands of others.
And I agree, Hungary are quite right to insist on processing people who come into their country illegally. That is a legal requirement.
The red top press have seized on a picture of a poor little child. They are hyping this as if we in The West are responsible. But Turkey already has 1.8 million refugees, and I don't think they are being bombed or butchered while in Turkey. Does not that lads father bear some responsibility for what occurred? I wonder how many other children have drowned without being photographed, and how many others have been blown to bits by morons who are members of some sick sect or failed government.
Don't Turkey bear some responsibility for sitting back and watching Kurds slaughter IS, then IS slaughter Kurds in Kobane less than a mile from their border and do absolutely nothing other than watch? It suited them that two of their enemies were depleting each other. You commented Fascinating on my suggestion that we 'ring fence' IS territory regarding oil exports. You suggest we bomb the IS held oilfields. We don't need to. Oil is bulky and relatively low value. You can't move significant quantities without being noticed. Target the movement, and target those who trade in it, whether middle men or those directly involved.
|
|