Apart from keeping the sun off I see them as somewhat bizarre. Their should be a national burn the Burka day just as they had burn the bra day movement back in the 60's.
The good Muslims should get behind this cause.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 5:49pm:

Apart from keeping the sun off I see them as somewhat bizarre.

We see you as somewhat bizarre too, dear.

Should we have you banned?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 5:54pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 5:49pm: Apart from keeping the sun off I see them as somewhat bizarre. We see you as somewhat bizarre too, dear. Should we have you banned?

Don't call me dear, poof.
We don't like your kind round here.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 5:54pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 5:49pm: Apart from keeping the sun off I see them as somewhat bizarre. We see you as somewhat bizarre too, dear. Should we have you banned? Don't call me dear, poof. We don't like your kind round here.

Why not, dear?

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 5:49pm:

Apart from keeping the sun off I see them as somewhat bizarre. Their should be a national burn the Burka day just as they had burn the bra day movement back in the 60's. The good Muslims should get behind this cause.

What do you mean nothing screams modern feminism like this fetching little number.

---

Australia's first Burkha.
Very good at repelling 'stonings'

---

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 6:05pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 5:49pm: Apart from keeping the sun off I see them as somewhat bizarre. Their should be a national burn the Burka day just as they had burn the bra day movement back in the 60's. The good Muslims should get behind this cause. What do you mean nothing screams modern feminism like this fetching little number.

If only she had a see through veil on, I could go that.

That must be a picture from muhummids book "Animals I have Loved"

Muzzos are such strange barbarians

Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:25pm:

Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it.

Here is a beauty queen parade.

---

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:31pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade.

When I see that picture, I just cringe.

Absolute deprivation.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:33pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade. When I see that picture, I just cringe. Absolute deprivation.

And this is the CULT that motheaten, bwyannnnnn and other apologist, sycophant, sympathisers so vehemently  protect.

Sad isnt it?

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:33pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade. When I see that picture, I just cringe. Absolute deprivation.

The most cringworty thing is that so called progressives are supporting the existence of burka, in the name of personal freedom.

The most cringe worthy thing is to know it is still happening, even here in OZ.

BURN THE BURKA

Valkie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:33pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade. When I see that picture, I just cringe. Absolute deprivation. And this is the CULT that motheaten, bwyannnnnn and other apologist, sycophant, sympathisers so vehemently  protect. Sad isnt it?

Incorrect, Valkie. The so-called 'apologists' don't agree with 'forced' application of this provision. Second, I assume that some of them believe that the doctrine of Islam does not explicitly state that a woman must wear this.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:37pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:33pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade. When I see that picture, I just cringe. Absolute deprivation. The most cringworty thing is that so called progressives are supporting the existence of burka, in the name of personal freedom.

Incorrect, they support the right to 'choose' to wear the burqa.

The women in the photo are being forced to wear it, and are beaten if they don't wear it.

Two different things.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:42pm:

The most cringe worthy thing is to know it is still happening, even here in OZ.

Yes, but in Australia they are free to choose to wear it. There is no law against or for it.

Burkas and their place in modern society - toilet paper ?

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:45pm:

Valkie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:36pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:33pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade. When I see that picture, I just cringe. Absolute deprivation. And this is the CULT that motheaten, bwyannnnnn and other apologist, sycophant, sympathisers so vehemently  protect. Sad isnt it? Incorrect, Valkie. The so-called 'apologists' don't agree with 'forced' application of this provision. Second, I assume that some of them believe that the doctrine of Islam does not explicitly state that a woman must wear this.

The burka is a sign of freedom, pigs bum, its a sign of a cult.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:46pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:37pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:33pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade. When I see that picture, I just cringe. Absolute deprivation. The most cringworty thing is that so called progressives are supporting the existence of burka, in the name of personal freedom. Incorrect, they support the right to 'choose' to wear the burqa. The women in the photo are being forced to wear it, and are beaten if they don't wear it. Two different things.

The right to choose is an interesting one eh?
The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:49pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:45pm: Valkie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:36pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:33pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade. When I see that picture, I just cringe. Absolute deprivation. And this is the CULT that motheaten, bwyannnnnn and other apologist, sycophant, sympathisers so vehemently  protect. Sad isnt it? Incorrect, Valkie. The so-called 'apologists' don't agree with 'forced' application of this provision. Second, I assume that some of them believe that the doctrine of Islam does not explicitly state that a woman must wear this. The burka is a sign of freedom, pigs bum, its a sign of a cult.

I wouldn't go that far; it's not a 'sign of freedom.'

It's a sign of diversity.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:49pm:

The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism.

if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome?

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:49pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:46pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:37pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:33pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade. When I see that picture, I just cringe. Absolute deprivation. The most cringworty thing is that so called progressives are supporting the existence of burka, in the name of personal freedom. Incorrect, they support the right to 'choose' to wear the burqa. The women in the photo are being forced to wear it, and are beaten if they don't wear it. Two different things. The right to choose is an interesting one eh? The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism.

But how do you do determine that? How do you know?

You have to take them (adult women) at face value, until you have evidence otherwise.

Islam is a religion of apartheid.

Go to Lakemba and see the lack of women even enjoying sitting in a cafe.  The cafes are chock full of men smoking, having animated conversations and eating sweets biscuits.

Hardly a woman in sight.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:49pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:46pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:37pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:33pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade. When I see that picture, I just cringe. Absolute deprivation. The most cringworty thing is that so called progressives are supporting the existence of burka, in the name of personal freedom. Incorrect, they support the right to 'choose' to wear the burqa. The women in the photo are being forced to wear it, and are beaten if they don't wear it. Two different things. The right to choose is an interesting one eh? The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism.

Just the fact that they cant leave home in the middle of summer with a black blanket covering them is a bit strange.
We don't likes them kind round here.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:52pm:

Islam is a religion of apartheid. Go to Lakemba and see the lack of women even enjoying sitting in a cafe.  The cafes are chock full of men smoking, having animated conversations and eating sweets biscuits. Hardly a woman in sight.

So? It's neither your business nor mine.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:50pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:45pm: Valkie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:36pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:33pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade. When I see that picture, I just cringe. Absolute deprivation. And this is the CULT that motheaten, bwyannnnnn and other apologist, sycophant, sympathisers so vehemently  protect. Sad isnt it? Incorrect, Valkie. The so-called 'apologists' don't agree with 'forced' application of this provision. Second, I assume that some of them believe that the doctrine of Islam does not explicitly state that a woman must wear this. The burka is a sign of freedom, pigs bum, its a sign of a cult. I wouldn't go that far; it's not a 'sign of freedom.' It's a sign of diversity.

And yet the CULTISTS denigrate our women for wearing more comfortable and attractive atture.

Funny how its ok for one group and yet "cat food" for another

John Smith wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:51pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome?

Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs.

Ban Saudi trained imams.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:53pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:46pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:37pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:33pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:31pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:25pm: Muslim men make their women wear a bag on their heads. That's about it. Here is a beauty queen parade. When I see that picture, I just cringe. Absolute deprivation. The most cringworty thing is that so called progressives are supporting the existence of burka, in the name of personal freedom. Incorrect, they support the right to 'choose' to wear the burqa. The women in the photo are being forced to wear it, and are beaten if they don't wear it. Two different things. The right to choose is an interesting one eh? The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. Just the fact that they cant leave home in the middle of summer with a black blanket covering them is a bit strange. We don't likes them kind round here.

What do you care? They don't effect you.

The primary rule of a classical liberalism: non-aggression principal.

If no physical, psychological or emotional harm is done, then it's no one business.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams.

Mmm. That's treading a very fine line.

What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed.

Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them.

You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:54pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:52pm: Islam is a religion of apartheid. Go to Lakemba and see the lack of women even enjoying sitting in a cafe.  The cafes are chock full of men smoking, having animated conversations and eating sweets biscuits. Hardly a woman in sight. So? It's neither your business nor mine.

These men sneer at the sight of woman unucompanied by a man. It's my business on what our future society will be like. I have a daughter who will have to exist in the same city as these nut jobs.  Do you?

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:00pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:52pm: Islam is a religion of apartheid. Go to Lakemba and see the lack of women even enjoying sitting in a cafe.  The cafes are chock full of men smoking, having animated conversations and eating sweets biscuits. Hardly a woman in sight. So? It's neither your business nor mine. These men sneer at the sight of woman unucompanied by a man. It's my business on what our future society will be like. I have a daughter who will have to exist in the same city as these nut jobs.  Do you?

Are you able to avoid Lakemba?

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:59pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected.

We should be selfish and take the people most beneficial to our society.  People embuggerd by wahabisim, nup.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:03pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. We should be selfish and take the people most beneficial to our society.  People embuggerd by wahabisim, nup.

See, Enoch Powell said that numbers matter. So, having 2% of the population as diverse is much different to 5% or 8%.

It's a tough one, Gordie.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:01pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:00pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:52pm: Islam is a religion of apartheid. Go to Lakemba and see the lack of women even enjoying sitting in a cafe.  The cafes are chock full of men smoking, having animated conversations and eating sweets biscuits. Hardly a woman in sight. So? It's neither your business nor mine. These men sneer at the sight of woman unucompanied by a man. It's my business on what our future society will be like. I have a daughter who will have to exist in the same city as these nut jobs.  Do you? Are you able to avoid Lakemba?

They have cars dude.
You honestly need to do a fact finding tour to SW Sydney and I'd gladly accompany you.

I just wonder why we need fundementally religious Muslims while the rest of society is turning away frome religion.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:59pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected.

Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:06pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:01pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:00pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:52pm: Islam is a religion of apartheid. Go to Lakemba and see the lack of women even enjoying sitting in a cafe.  The cafes are chock full of men smoking, having animated conversations and eating sweets biscuits. Hardly a woman in sight. So? It's neither your business nor mine. These men sneer at the sight of woman unucompanied by a man. It's my business on what our future society will be like. I have a daughter who will have to exist in the same city as these nut jobs.  Do you? Are you able to avoid Lakemba? They have cars dude. You honestly need to do a fact finding tour to SW Sydney and I'd gladly accompany you. I just wonder why we need fundementally religious Muslims while the rest of society is turning away frome religion.

Look, I take your point. I have never experienced something like that. I don't have any kids, either.

I'm not completely delusional to think that beliefs don't necessarily lead to actions.

I can't reconcile your point of view with my Libertarian views, Gordie. Help me out?

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:07pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls.

Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:10pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:06pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:01pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:00pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:52pm: Islam is a religion of apartheid. Go to Lakemba and see the lack of women even enjoying sitting in a cafe.  The cafes are chock full of men smoking, having animated conversations and eating sweets biscuits. Hardly a woman in sight. So? It's neither your business nor mine. These men sneer at the sight of woman unucompanied by a man. It's my business on what our future society will be like. I have a daughter who will have to exist in the same city as these nut jobs.  Do you? Are you able to avoid Lakemba? They have cars dude. You honestly need to do a fact finding tour to SW Sydney and I'd gladly accompany you. I just wonder why we need fundementally religious Muslims while the rest of society is turning away frome religion. Look, I take your point. I have never experienced something like that. I don't have any kids, either. I'm not completely delusional to think that beliefs don't necessarily lead to actions. I can't reconcile your point of view with my Libertarian views, Gordie. Help me out?

I'm also a centrist with both social and libertarian leanings on some things but increasingly I'm meeting lefties who are going very cold on Islam.  Guess which ones.....yup, the ones who bump up against their hyper patriarchal inflexible and intolerant culture.

The tolerant tolerating the intolerant in the name of tolerance is just as stupid as that sentence sounds :)

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:10pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:06pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:01pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:00pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:52pm: Islam is a religion of apartheid. Go to Lakemba and see the lack of women even enjoying sitting in a cafe.  The cafes are chock full of men smoking, having animated conversations and eating sweets biscuits. Hardly a woman in sight. So? It's neither your business nor mine. These men sneer at the sight of woman unucompanied by a man. It's my business on what our future society will be like. I have a daughter who will have to exist in the same city as these nut jobs.  Do you? Are you able to avoid Lakemba? They have cars dude. You honestly need to do a fact finding tour to SW Sydney and I'd gladly accompany you. I just wonder why we need fundementally religious Muslims while the rest of society is turning away frome religion. Look, I take your point. I have never experienced something like that. I don't have any kids, either. I'm not completely delusional to think that beliefs don't necessarily lead to actions. I can't reconcile your point of view with my Libertarian views, Gordie. Help me out? I'm also a centrist with both social and libertarian leanings on some things but increasingly I'm meeting lefties who are going very cold on Islam.  Guess which ones.....yup, the ones who bump up against their hyper patriarchal inflexible and intolerant culture. The tolerant tolerating the intolerant in the name of tolerance is just as stupid as that sentence sounds :)

Between you and me, I think I'm becoming a conservative, only a little.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:11pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody.

Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:21pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:17pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:10pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:06pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:01pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:00pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:52pm: Islam is a religion of apartheid. Go to Lakemba and see the lack of women even enjoying sitting in a cafe.  The cafes are chock full of men smoking, having animated conversations and eating sweets biscuits. Hardly a woman in sight. So? It's neither your business nor mine. These men sneer at the sight of woman unucompanied by a man. It's my business on what our future society will be like. I have a daughter who will have to exist in the same city as these nut jobs.  Do you? Are you able to avoid Lakemba? They have cars dude. You honestly need to do a fact finding tour to SW Sydney and I'd gladly accompany you. I just wonder why we need fundementally religious Muslims while the rest of society is turning away frome religion. Look, I take your point. I have never experienced something like that. I don't have any kids, either. I'm not completely delusional to think that beliefs don't necessarily lead to actions. I can't reconcile your point of view with my Libertarian views, Gordie. Help me out? I'm also a centrist with both social and libertarian leanings on some things but increasingly I'm meeting lefties who are going very cold on Islam.  Guess which ones.....yup, the ones who bump up against their hyper patriarchal inflexible and intolerant culture. The tolerant tolerating the intolerant in the name of tolerance is just as stupid as that sentence sounds :) Between you and me, I think I'm becoming a conservative, only a little.

It happens with age. I used to kick around with the Greens, but back then they were actually environmentalists.

The thing is Caesar, Islam has been well and truly hijacked by wahhabism. It's in the mosques and schools and prayer halls. We're becoming more liberalism yet we're told we have to accept the most illiberal cultures on the planet?

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:25pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda.

Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what.

When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination.

The place of burkas in modern society?

Why - on the bodies of some Muslim women....

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:28pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda. Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what. When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination.

Thats BS. We should take people who are most suitable.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:21pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:17pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:10pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:06pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:01pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:00pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:54pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:52pm: Islam is a religion of apartheid. Go to Lakemba and see the lack of women even enjoying sitting in a cafe.  The cafes are chock full of men smoking, having animated conversations and eating sweets biscuits. Hardly a woman in sight. So? It's neither your business nor mine. These men sneer at the sight of woman unucompanied by a man. It's my business on what our future society will be like. I have a daughter who will have to exist in the same city as these nut jobs.  Do you? Are you able to avoid Lakemba? They have cars dude. You honestly need to do a fact finding tour to SW Sydney and I'd gladly accompany you. I just wonder why we need fundementally religious Muslims while the rest of society is turning away frome religion. Look, I take your point. I have never experienced something like that. I don't have any kids, either. I'm not completely delusional to think that beliefs don't necessarily lead to actions. I can't reconcile your point of view with my Libertarian views, Gordie. Help me out? I'm also a centrist with both social and libertarian leanings on some things but increasingly I'm meeting lefties who are going very cold on Islam.  Guess which ones.....yup, the ones who bump up against their hyper patriarchal inflexible and intolerant culture. The tolerant tolerating the intolerant in the name of tolerance is just as stupid as that sentence sounds :) Between you and me, I think I'm becoming a conservative, only a little. It happens with age. I used to kick around with the Greens, but back then they were actually environmentalists. The thing is Caesar, Islam has been well and truly hijacked by wahhabism. It's in the mosques and schools and prayer halls. We're becoming more liberalism yet we're told we have to accept the most illiberal cultures on the planet?

This is gonna sound controversial, but we should significantly reduce refugee intake to either zero or almost zero, and allow temporary, work and study migrants only.

The issue is how do we deal with unlawful entrants? Probably sent them to Indonesia, or grant them temporary protection visas like Howard, and then if they kick up a stick, then we can deport them.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:28pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda. Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what. When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination.

Australias immigration intake is necessarily discriminatory and always has been.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:32pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:28pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda. Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what. When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination. Thats BS. We should take people who are most suitable.

You can't discriminate. It's everyone or no one.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:28pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda. Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what. When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination.

We know the root cause of the problem and its not the Mormans, logic would be to stop the offending religious nutters from entering.

rhino wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:32pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:28pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda. Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what. When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination. Australias immigration intake is necessarily discriminatory and always has been.

Yes, in the sense that those with certain passports get special privileges; but this is quite different from barring or granting entry based on religion or race. A Muslim with an American passport is judged according to his/her nationality, not religion.

My idea is to significantly reduce refugee intake to nearly zero, but allow all other migration in plentiful numbers.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:34pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:28pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda. Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what. When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination. We know the root cause of the problem and its not the Mormans, logic would be to stop the offending religious nutters from entering.

It doesn't matter.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:33pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:32pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:28pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda. Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what. When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination. Thats BS. We should take people who are most suitable. You can't discriminate. It's everyone or no one.

Would an American neo nazi with a swastika tattoo on his head pass the first immigration interview ?

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:37pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:33pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:32pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:28pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda. Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what. When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination. Thats BS. We should take people who are most suitable. You can't discriminate. It's everyone or no one. Would an American neo nazi with a swastika tattoo on his head pass the first immigration interview ?

In Australia, I think he would. Unless, there's a law stating otherwise?

If that's the case, then this is wrong.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:35pm:

rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:32pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:28pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda. Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what. When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination. Australias immigration intake is necessarily discriminatory and always has been. Yes, in the sense that those with certain passports get special privileges; but this is quite different from barring or granting entry based on religion or race. A Muslim with an American passport is judged according to his/her nationality, not religion. My idea is to significantly reduce refugee intake to nearly zero, but allow all other migration in plentiful numbers.

I agree, only Swedish women with long blonde hair should be allowed to come here.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:40pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:37pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:33pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:32pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:28pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda. Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what. When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination. Thats BS. We should take people who are most suitable. You can't discriminate. It's everyone or no one. Would an American neo nazi with a swastika tattoo on his head pass the first immigration interview ? In Australia, I think he would. Unless, there's a law stating otherwise? If that's the case, then this is wrong.

He wouldn't.
He wouldn't pass the character test.
Currently ultra conservative Muslims do due to moral confusion.

Read this, tell me what you think.

As it turns out, to denigrate the Taliban at a scientific meeting is to court controversy (after all, “Who decides what is a successful life?”) At the conclusion of my talk, I fell into debate with another invited speaker, who seemed, at first glance, to be very well positioned to reason effectively about the implications of science for our understanding of morality. She holds a degree in genetics from Dartmouth, a masters in biology from Harvard, and a law degree, another masters, and a Ph.D. in the philosophy of biology from Duke. This scholar is now a recognized authority on the intersection between criminal law, genetics, neuroscience and philosophy. Here is a snippet of our conversation, more or less verbatim:

She: What makes you think that science will ever be able to say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong?

Me: Because I think that right and wrong are a matter of increasing or decreasing well-being—and it is obvious that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating or killing them if they refuse, is not a good strategy for maximizing human well-being.

She: But that’s only your opinion.

Me: Okay... Let’s make it even simpler. What if we found a culture that ritually blinded every third child by literally plucking out his or her eyes at birth, would you then agree that we had found a culture that was needlessly diminishing human well-being?

She: It would depend on why they were doing it.

Me (slowly returning my eyebrows from the back of my head): Let’s say they were doing it on the basis of religious superstition. In their scripture, God says, “Every third must walk in darkness.”

She: Then you could never say that they were wrong.
Such opinions are not uncommon in the Ivory Tower.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:35pm:

Yes, in the sense that those with certain passports get special privileges; but this is quite different from barring or granting entry based on religion or race. A Muslim with an American passport is judged according to his/her nationality, not religion.

You think limiting the number of Chinese and Indian immigrants isnt based on race? If the intake wasnt adjusted for religion how many Muslims do you think would be here? Its not a matter of "barring entry" its simply a matter of not granting that many visas to particular groups.


Quote:

My idea is to significantly reduce refugee intake to nearly zero, but allow all other migration in plentiful numbers.

Why?

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:44pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:40pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:37pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:33pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:32pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:28pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:25pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:11pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:07pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:59pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:55pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:49pm: The right to choose to submit to the societal pressure of the most toxic for of islam, whaabism. if that's what they choose, who are you to say otherwise? Or is democracy only good when you agree with the outcome? Simple.  Ban the immigration of ultra conservative Muslim nut jobs. Ban Saudi trained imams. Mmm. That's treading a very fine line. What I would do, as a centrist position, is to significantly reduce immigration across the board; refugees more so. This way, it effects everyone, irrespective of race, religion or creed. Which means that once the quota's up, and there's a bunch of persecuted Christian Syrians, we won't be able to take them. You can't pick and choose: either everyone is affected, or no one is affected. Yep easy, ban Muslims till the stop blowing up teenage girls. Incorrect, if you want to ban Muslims, then you have to ban everybody. Is that because of political correctionism or some other sinister agenda. Neither. It's because we shouldn't pick and choose who gets what, or who has the right to what. When it affects everybody, there's no discrimination. Thats BS. We should take people who are most suitable. You can't discriminate. It's everyone or no one. Would an American neo nazi with a swastika tattoo on his head pass the first immigration interview ? In Australia, I think he would. Unless, there's a law stating otherwise? If that's the case, then this is wrong. He wouldn't. He wouldn't pass the character test. Currently ultra conservative Muslims do due to moral confusion. Read this, tell me what you think. As it turns out, to denigrate the Taliban at a scientific meeting is to court controversy (after all, “Who decides what is a successful life?”) At the conclusion of my talk, I fell into debate with another invited speaker, who seemed, at first glance, to be very well positioned to reason effectively about the implications of science for our understanding of morality. She holds a degree in genetics from Dartmouth, a masters in biology from Harvard, and a law degree, another masters, and a Ph.D. in the philosophy of biology from Duke. This scholar is now a recognized authority on the intersection between criminal law, genetics, neuroscience and philosophy. Here is a snippet of our conversation, more or less verbatim: She: What makes you think that science will ever be able to say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong? Me: Because I think that right and wrong are a matter of increasing or decreasing well-being—and it is obvious that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating or killing them if they refuse, is not a good strategy for maximizing human well-being. She: But that’s only your opinion. Me: Okay... Let’s make it even simpler. What if we found a culture that ritually blinded every third child by literally plucking out his or her eyes at birth, would you then agree that we had found a culture that was needlessly diminishing human well-being? She: It would depend on why they were doing it. Me (slowly returning my eyebrows from the back of my head): Let’s say they were doing it on the basis of religious superstition. In their scripture, God says, “Every third must walk in darkness.” She: Then you could never say that they were wrong. Such opinions are not uncommon in the Ivory Tower.

I've heard this example before by Sam Harris. It's an interesting example. I think the woman in question was employed by President Obama in a diversity commission. Her point of view was politically-motivated, and conformed to a political agenda.

I totally take your point though.

The question is: should we have a policy that discriminates against people based on what they believe? This is essentially policing thought, and this is a slippery slope. That's why I say that if we are wanting to exclude a group of people based on their beliefs and thoughts, then we need to also exclude all other persons based on their beliefs and thoughts as well, irrespective of whether or not they are conducive to well-being. As soon as you start picking and choosing, then you're essentially dictating which group of people has rights, and which others don't. And this is a dangerous precedent - akin to totalitarianism.

Where the hell is god, probably working in mysterious ways.

rhino wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:46pm:

You think limiting the number of Chinese and Indian immigrants isnt based on race? If the intake wasnt adjusted for religion how many Muslims do you think would be here? Its not a matter of "barring entry" its simply a matter of not granting that many visas to particular groups.

But what if a Muslim person who holds German citizenship applies to study in Australia? Or do business? Do we exclude him/her because he/she is Muslim, notwithstanding their citizenship?


rhino wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:46pm:

Why?

Simple, because if you want to exclude those who hold extremist and intolerant beliefs (as some people do), then the greater preponderance of such persons are almost always among refugees and asylum seekers. Therefore, if you were to cut refugee intake to zero, you would effectively at this point in time, given the world situation, be taking in very few Muslims.

Therefore, isn't your goal achieved?

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:00pm:

rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 9:46pm: You think limiting the number of Chinese and Indian immigrants isnt based on race? If the intake wasnt adjusted for religion how many Muslims do you think would be here? Its not a matter of "barring entry" its simply a matter of not granting that many visas to particular groups. But what if a Muslim person who holds German citizenship applies to study in Australia? Or do business? Do we exclude him/her because he/she is Muslim, notwithstanding their citizenship?

Yes.


Quote:

Simple, because if you want to exclude those who hold extremist and intolerant beliefs (as some people do), then the greater preponderance of such persons are almost always among refugees and asylum seekers. Therefore, isn't your goal achieved?

Theres no evidence of that, if fact the opposite may well be true.


Quote:

Therefore, if you were to cut refugee intake to zero, you would effectively at this point in time, given the world situation, be taking in very few Muslims.

How about we just dont take Muslims.

In think you're missing the point that we DO pick and choose who comes here. A few years ago hairdressers were high on the skills list, to the detriment of nail artists?  :)

We already take who we need but we just need to be a bit more selective.

As for the slippery slope,  well  that can be applied to anything but we shouldn't be afraid of making pragmatic steps just because of what else could follow

rhino wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:04pm:

Yes.

Even if that person holds liberal beliefs and values?


rhino wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:04pm:

Theres no evidence of that, if fact the opposite may well be true.

What do you mean 'the opposite may be true.' As far as I'm aware, most of the issues surrounding the Muslim community with regard to Wahhabist values are more prevalent among uneducated, and poor Muslims. Sure, you'll get those who are educated who hold such beliefs, but they'd be significantly less in number.


rhino wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:04pm:

How about we just dont take Muslims.

Because that is not in accordance with the principal of 'equality under law'.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:08pm:

What do you mean 'the opposite may be true.' As far as I'm aware, most of the issues surrounding the Muslim community with regard to Wahhabist values are more prevalent among uneducated, and poor Muslims. Sure, you'll get those who are educated who hold such beliefs, but they'd be significantly less in number.

have a look at the perpetrators of Muslim terrorist attacks in the West. None of them are poor or uneducated.


Quote:

Because that is not in accordance with the principal of 'equality under law'.

Neither is what you are proposing.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:07pm:

In think you're missing the point that we DO pick and choose who comes here. A few years ago hairdressers were high on the skills list, to the detriment of nail artists?

I actually think that the whole skills shortage list is not a good policy, but that's another issue.

It's one thing to discriminate based on occupation; quite another to discriminate based on beliefs.

rhino wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:12pm:

have a look at the perpetrators of Muslim terrorist attacks in the West. None of them are poor or uneducated.

We're not talking about Jihadis, those who blow up people - criminals come in all shapes and colours. We're talking about people who hold pernicious beliefs that affect daily interactions with people.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:13pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:07pm: In think you're missing the point that we DO pick and choose who comes here. A few years ago hairdressers were high on the skills list, to the detriment of nail artists? I actually think that the whole skills shortage list is not a good policy, but that's another issue. It's one thing to discriminate based on occupation; quite another to discriminate based on beliefs.

When a belief is so strong that it makes it holder act like they're living 1000 years in the past, we have the right to question if they're the right fit for our country.

I doubt you'd invite a fundy wahabist into your home,  we just scale it up.  Australia is home.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:15pm:

rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:12pm: have a look at the perpetrators of Muslim terrorist attacks in the West. None of them are poor or uneducated. We're not talking about Jihadis, those who blow up people - criminals come in all shapes and colours. We're talking about people who hold pernicious beliefs that affect daily interactions with people.

What is the bet the next terror attack in the name of religion against the West is perpetrated by a muslim.
They even blow up teenage girls.
Stop Immigration now.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:18pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:13pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:07pm: In think you're missing the point that we DO pick and choose who comes here. A few years ago hairdressers were high on the skills list, to the detriment of nail artists? I actually think that the whole skills shortage list is not a good policy, but that's another issue. It's one thing to discriminate based on occupation; quite another to discriminate based on beliefs. When a belief is so strong that it makes it holder act like they're living 1000 years in the past, we have the right to question if they're the right fit for our country. I doubt you'd invite a fundy wahabist into your home,  we just scale it up.  Australia is home.

Believe it or not, Gordie, I would actually invite him into my home, and engage in discussion with him: provided that he comes in peace, and leaves in peace.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:24pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:18pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:13pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:07pm: In think you're missing the point that we DO pick and choose who comes here. A few years ago hairdressers were high on the skills list, to the detriment of nail artists? I actually think that the whole skills shortage list is not a good policy, but that's another issue. It's one thing to discriminate based on occupation; quite another to discriminate based on beliefs. When a belief is so strong that it makes it holder act like they're living 1000 years in the past, we have the right to question if they're the right fit for our country. I doubt you'd invite a fundy wahabist into your home,  we just scale it up.  Australia is home. Believe it or not, Gordie, I would actually invite him into my home, and engage in discussion with him: provided that he comes in peace, and leaves in peace.

Yes - I offer the opportunity for those who come in peace and I can tell the ones who don't want to and thus, my door shuts on them. I have no time for people like that.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:24pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:18pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:13pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:07pm: In think you're missing the point that we DO pick and choose who comes here. A few years ago hairdressers were high on the skills list, to the detriment of nail artists? I actually think that the whole skills shortage list is not a good policy, but that's another issue. It's one thing to discriminate based on occupation; quite another to discriminate based on beliefs. When a belief is so strong that it makes it holder act like they're living 1000 years in the past, we have the right to question if they're the right fit for our country. I doubt you'd invite a fundy wahabist into your home,  we just scale it up.  Australia is home. Believe it or not, Gordie, I would actually invite him into my home, and engage in discussion with him: provided that he comes in peace, and leaves in peace.

Only to satisfy your curiosity.

Let me put this another way. I've picked a stock or two in my days and I'm not too shabby at it.

Imigration balance needs to be treated like a share portfolio with the emphasis on low risk.

As you know not all cultures are equal because a culture is essentially a collection of ideas, and on balance some  are better than others.

Muslims have way too many downsides, particularly when there are so many more low risk options.

Remember, this can't be undone in the future.

We should cease Muslim immigration until the census shows its less than 1% and or when there is a lurch towards modernity and secularism in the middle east.

On that I won't hold my breath.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:15pm:

rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:12pm: have a look at the perpetrators of Muslim terrorist attacks in the West. None of them are poor or uneducated. We're not talking about Jihadis, those who blow up people - criminals come in all shapes and colours. We're talking about people who hold pernicious beliefs that affect daily interactions with people.

Now now, Augie, Gordon is free to hold pernicious beliefs about all the tinted races.

He pashed a Boong on the bus to Dubbo, you see.

Karnal wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 11:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:15pm: rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:12pm: have a look at the perpetrators of Muslim terrorist attacks in the West. None of them are poor or uneducated. We're not talking about Jihadis, those who blow up people - criminals come in all shapes and colours. We're talking about people who hold pernicious beliefs that affect daily interactions with people. Now now, Augie, Gordon is free to hold pernicious beliefs about all the tinted races. He pashed a Boong on the bus to Dubbo, you see.

I nearly pashed a gin once.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:46pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:24pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:18pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:13pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:07pm: In think you're missing the point that we DO pick and choose who comes here. A few years ago hairdressers were high on the skills list, to the detriment of nail artists? I actually think that the whole skills shortage list is not a good policy, but that's another issue. It's one thing to discriminate based on occupation; quite another to discriminate based on beliefs. When a belief is so strong that it makes it holder act like they're living 1000 years in the past, we have the right to question if they're the right fit for our country. I doubt you'd invite a fundy wahabist into your home,  we just scale it up.  Australia is home. Believe it or not, Gordie, I would actually invite him into my home, and engage in discussion with him: provided that he comes in peace, and leaves in peace. Only to satisfy your curiosity. Let me put this another way. I've picked a stock or two in my days and I'm not too shabby at it.

You nearly married one once, no?

I was a little tipsy.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 11:38pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:36pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:15pm: rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:12pm: have a look at the perpetrators of Muslim terrorist attacks in the West. None of them are poor or uneducated. We're not talking about Jihadis, those who blow up people - criminals come in all shapes and colours. We're talking about people who hold pernicious beliefs that affect daily interactions with people. Now now, Augie, Gordon is free to hold pernicious beliefs about all the tinted races. He pashed a Boong on the bus to Dubbo, you see. I nearly pashed a gin once.

That's the spirit, Matty, but if I was you, I'd stick to the methamphetamines.

Gin gives you brewers droop.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 11:39pm:

I was a little tipsy.

Oh, I know.

Karnal wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 11:42pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:39pm: I was a little tipsy. Oh, I know.

She had the lips of a lubra, god I love them lips.

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:15pm:

rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:12pm: have a look at the perpetrators of Muslim terrorist attacks in the West. None of them are poor or uneducated. We're not talking about Jihadis, those who blow up people - criminals come in all shapes and colours. We're talking about people who hold pernicious beliefs that affect daily interactions with people.

Zero evidence that the poor and uneducated have a monopoly on pernicious beliefs. Try again.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 11:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:42pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:39pm: I was a little tipsy. Oh, I know. She had the lips of a lubra, god I love them lips.

A labourer, eh?

I'm sure he did, Matty. Hard working lips, no?

rhino wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 11:57pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:15pm: rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:12pm: have a look at the perpetrators of Muslim terrorist attacks in the West. None of them are poor or uneducated. We're not talking about Jihadis, those who blow up people - criminals come in all shapes and colours. We're talking about people who hold pernicious beliefs that affect daily interactions with people. Zero evidence that the poor and uneducated have a monopoly on pernicious beliefs. Try again.

Only the posters here, Rhino.

You?

Karnal wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 1:23am:

rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:57pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:15pm: rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:12pm: have a look at the perpetrators of Muslim terrorist attacks in the West. None of them are poor or uneducated. We're not talking about Jihadis, those who blow up people - criminals come in all shapes and colours. We're talking about people who hold pernicious beliefs that affect daily interactions with people. Zero evidence that the poor and uneducated have a monopoly on pernicious beliefs. Try again. Only the posters here, Rhino. You?

And you

Johnnie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 1:30am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 1:23am: rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 11:57pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:15pm: rhino wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:12pm: have a look at the perpetrators of Muslim terrorist attacks in the West. None of them are poor or uneducated. We're not talking about Jihadis, those who blow up people - criminals come in all shapes and colours. We're talking about people who hold pernicious beliefs that affect daily interactions with people. Zero evidence that the poor and uneducated have a monopoly on pernicious beliefs. Try again. Only the posters here, Rhino. You? And you

We can run amok

Auggie wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 8:47pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:42pm: The most cringe worthy thing is to know it is still happening, even here in OZ. Yes, but in Australia they are free to choose to wear it. There is no law against or for it.

But since it isn't a right, we can easily make a nice little law and ban that sh1t for 'safety' reasons.


Australia is good at bringing in those type of laws, should be fairly straight forward.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 8:01am:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:47pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:42pm: The most cringe worthy thing is to know it is still happening, even here in OZ. Yes, but in Australia they are free to choose to wear it. There is no law against or for it. But since it isn't a right, we can easily make a nice little law and ban that sh1t for 'safety' reasons. Australia is good at bringing in those type of laws, should be fairly straight forward.

"safety reasons"     ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 8:01am:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:47pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:42pm: The most cringe worthy thing is to know it is still happening, even here in OZ. Yes, but in Australia they are free to choose to wear it. There is no law against or for it. But since it isn't a right, we can easily make a nice little law and ban that sh1t for 'safety' reasons.

If it's about 'safety', you'll have to ban these too:


http://entertainmentstore.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/AFL6.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 8:33am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 8:01am: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:47pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:42pm: The most cringe worthy thing is to know it is still happening, even here in OZ. Yes, but in Australia they are free to choose to wear it. There is no law against or for it. But since it isn't a right, we can easily make a nice little law and ban that sh1t for 'safety' reasons. Australia is good at bringing in those type of laws, should be fairly straight forward. "safety reasons"     ;D

We have lots of stupid laws in place for 'safety reasons', can't see why we can't add one more, can you?


It is who we are as a people, it is what we want, we will willingly sacrifice freedom for safety. As a card carrying coward I thought you would be front and centre on this matter.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 9:15am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 8:01am: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:47pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:42pm: The most cringe worthy thing is to know it is still happening, even here in OZ. Yes, but in Australia they are free to choose to wear it. There is no law against or for it. But since it isn't a right, we can easily make a nice little law and ban that sh1t for 'safety' reasons. If it's about 'safety', you'll have to ban these too: http://entertainmentstore.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/AFL6.jpg

Absolutely, this is Australia it is what we do.


We start with the terrorists first and then work our way down to mascots, if that is what you want.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 9:15am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 8:01am: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:47pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:42pm: The most cringe worthy thing is to know it is still happening, even here in OZ. Yes, but in Australia they are free to choose to wear it. There is no law against or for it. But since it isn't a right, we can easily make a nice little law and ban that sh1t for 'safety' reasons. If it's about 'safety', you'll have to ban these too: http://entertainmentstore.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/AFL6.jpg

Are they Muslims?

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 9:24am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 9:15am: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 8:01am: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:47pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:42pm: The most cringe worthy thing is to know it is still happening, even here in OZ. Yes, but in Australia they are free to choose to wear it. There is no law against or for it. But since it isn't a right, we can easily make a nice little law and ban that sh1t for 'safety' reasons. If it's about 'safety', you'll have to ban these too: http://entertainmentstore.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/AFL6.jpg Absolutely, this is Australia it is what we do. We start with the terrorists first and then work our way down to mascots, if that is what you want.

You have no idea how stupid you are, do you?

You want to ban burkas for 'safety' reasons.

i.e. you "think" (and I'm being very generous when I use that word) that a terrorist will use a burka to disguise themselves.

So, using your "logic" (and again, I'm being extremely generous when using that term), a terrorist could quite possibly disguise themselves as a sporting mascot (thousands of people at sporting events, you know).

Or, they could use a burns mask to disguise themselves, or a Halloween mask, etc.

If, as you say, burkas need to be banned because of 'safety', you would have to ban all face coverings.

You really didn't think that one through too well, did you?

And, while we're on the subject of safety, why aren't you calling for a ban on backpacks?

Backpacks are used by terrorists to conceal their explosives.

Why aren't you demanding that legislation be introduced to forbid backpacks in all public areas?

Is it because you're an extremely naive, ignorant, under-educated buffoon, or is it because you're just a regular garden variety Islamophobe, fuelled by irrational fear & hatred, who isn't concerned about safety at all but instead just wants the burka banned because you quite simply don't like the look of it?

I'm genuinely curious.

Gordon wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:46pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:24pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:18pm: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:13pm: Gordon wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 10:07pm: In think you're missing the point that we DO pick and choose who comes here. A few years ago hairdressers were high on the skills list, to the detriment of nail artists? I actually think that the whole skills shortage list is not a good policy, but that's another issue. It's one thing to discriminate based on occupation; quite another to discriminate based on beliefs. When a belief is so strong that it makes it holder act like they're living 1000 years in the past, we have the right to question if they're the right fit for our country. I doubt you'd invite a fundy wahabist into your home,  we just scale it up.  Australia is home. Believe it or not, Gordie, I would actually invite him into my home, and engage in discussion with him: provided that he comes in peace, and leaves in peace. Only to satisfy your curiosity. Let me put this another way. I've picked a stock or two in my days and I'm not too shabby at it. Imigration balance needs to be treated like a share portfolio with the emphasis on low risk. As you know not all cultures are equal because a culture is essentially a collection of ideas, and on balance some  are better than others. Muslims have way too many downsides, particularly when there are so many more low risk options. Remember, this can't be undone in the future. We should cease Muslim immigration until the census shows its less than 1% and or when there is a lurch towards modernity and secularism in the middle east. On that I won't hold my breath.

You have to imagine the consequences of any policy: the PM appears in tv and announces such measures. This would completely alienate the local Muslim population who we need to help fight these bad ideas. Second, Muslims around the world would see this as oppression. The result would be a disaster: we would have even more attacks, vilification and security issues.

Thats why the government won't and shouldn't enact any such policy.

Unfortunately this is the world we live in at the moment. We have to work with what we've got. Yes, I agree that the left has failed in calling out those who hold pernicious beliefs. Neither is the answer to target Muslims

It would be a disaster.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 9:35am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 9:24am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 9:15am: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 8:01am: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:47pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:42pm: The most cringe worthy thing is to know it is still happening, even here in OZ. Yes, but in Australia they are free to choose to wear it. There is no law against or for it. But since it isn't a right, we can easily make a nice little law and ban that sh1t for 'safety' reasons. If it's about 'safety', you'll have to ban these too: http://entertainmentstore.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/AFL6.jpg Absolutely, this is Australia it is what we do. We start with the terrorists first and then work our way down to mascots, if that is what you want. You have no idea how stupid you are, do you? You want to ban burkas for 'safety' reasons. i.e. you "think" (and I'm being very generous when I use that word) that a terrorist will use a burka to disguise themselves. So, using your "logic" (and again, I'm being extremely generous when using that term), a terrorist could quite possibly disguise themselves as a sporting mascot (thousands of people at sporting events, you know). Or, they could use a burns mask to disguise themselves, or a Halloween mask, etc. If, as you say, burkas need to be banned because of 'safety', you would have to ban all face coverings. You really didn't think that one through too well, did you? And, while we're on the subject of safety, why aren't you calling for a ban on backpacks? Backpacks are used by terrorists to conceal their explosives. Why aren't you demanding that legislation be introduced to forbid backpacks in all public areas? Is it because you're an extremely naive, ignorant, under-educated buffoon, or is it because you're just a regular garden variety Islamophobe, fuelled by irrational fear & hatred, who isn't concerned about safety at all but instead just wants the burka banned because you quite simply don't like the look of it? I'm genuinely curious.

:-/

Caeser - you attitude is to pretend nothing is wrong with islam.

A lot is wrong with islam.

being nice to bullies fails.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 10:02am:

Caeser - you attitude is to pretend nothing is wrong with islam. A lot is wrong with islam. being nice to bullies fails.

don't you understand that your proposal would make things significantly worse?

Auggie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 10:08am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:02am: Caeser - you attitude is to pretend nothing is wrong with islam. A lot is wrong with islam. being nice to bullies fails. don't you understand that your proposal would make things significantly worse?

Islamophobes aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

Auggie wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 10:08am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:02am: Caeser - you attitude is to pretend nothing is wrong with islam. A lot is wrong with islam. being nice to bullies fails. don't you understand that your proposal would make things significantly worse?

the fewer muslims in a country the fewer islamic terrorist attackes.

You are believing the lefty ideas, not looking at reality.

Just because you treat people 'nicely', does not mean they will do the same to you.

'nice' people will, cultists won't.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 10:29am:

Auggie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:08am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:02am: Caeser - you attitude is to pretend nothing is wrong with islam. A lot is wrong with islam. being nice to bullies fails. don't you understand that your proposal would make things significantly worse? the fewer muslims in a country the fewer islamic terrorist attackes. You are believing the lefty ideas, not looking at reality.

Let's look at reality, shall we?

The vast majority of terrorist attacks, and mass murders, carried out in Australia were perpetrated by non-Muslims.

How does that reality feel, Sprinty?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 10:29am:

Auggie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:08am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:02am: Caeser - you attitude is to pretend nothing is wrong with islam. A lot is wrong with islam. being nice to bullies fails. don't you understand that your proposal would make things significantly worse? the fewer muslims in a country the fewer islamic terrorist attackes. You are believing the lefty ideas, not looking at reality. Just because you treat people 'nicely', does not mean they will do the same to you. 'nice' people will, cultists won't.

Yes but what about Muslim Australians who are already here? How do you think they will feel? What about Muslims around the world?

Vilifying people like Gandalf who we need as allies in this fight for ideas is a bad move.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 10:29am:

Auggie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:08am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:02am: Caeser - you attitude is to pretend nothing is wrong with islam. A lot is wrong with islam. being nice to bullies fails. don't you understand that your proposal would make things significantly worse? the fewer muslims in a country the fewer islamic terrorist attackes.

Alas, Sprint, the facts hardly reflect your proposition. To my knowledge, Iran and Saudi Arabia have had no terrorist attacks. The largest Muslim country - Indonesia - has had about 4 in recent memory.

The majority of terrorist attacks are carried out in countries engaged in civil war - Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan. Bordering countries also cop it - Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan.

Terrorism nearly always has military motives or objectives. ISIS has been attempting to carve a state out of Iraq and Syria. Attacks in Thailand and the Philippines have been in response to military action as part of separatist campaigns.

The cause of terrorism is not religion as such, but civil wars or independence struggles. Sri Lanka suffered similar attacks during their long civil war. The Tamil Tigers even invented the suicide bomb vest.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 10:29am:

Auggie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:08am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:02am: Caeser - you attitude is to pretend nothing is wrong with islam. A lot is wrong with islam. being nice to bullies fails. don't you understand that your proposal would make things significantly worse? the fewer muslims in a country the fewer islamic terrorist attacks.

Islamic terrorist attacks aren't a huge problem in this country.

Moreover, it's only a very small minority of Muslims (all over the globe) who become terrorists.

If you were really concerned about saving lives in this country, you'd be concentrating your efforts in other areas, such as calling for a ban on cars.

Are Islamic terrorists killing 1,200 people every year in Australia, Sprinty?

And, what about cigarettes?

Are Islamic terrorists killing 18,000 people in our country every year, Sprinty?

How about mass murders in Australia?

Martin Bryant, Roger Kingsley Dean, Robert Paul Long, John Bunting, Robert Wagner, and James Vlassakis, Julian Knight, et al.

Muslims?

I don't think so, Sprinty.

You see, you're not concerned about the safety of Australian citizens at all.

You're just a regular Islamophobe, fueled by irrational fear & hatred, with a good sprinkling of ignorance.

Tsk tsk    ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 11:08am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:29am: Auggie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:08am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:02am: Caeser - you attitude is to pretend nothing is wrong with islam. A lot is wrong with islam. being nice to bullies fails. don't you understand that your proposal would make things significantly worse? the fewer muslims in a country the fewer islamic terrorist attacks. Islamic terrorist attacks aren't a huge problem in this country. Moreover, it's only a very small minority of Muslims (all over the globe) who become terrorists. If you were really concerned about saving lives in this country, you'd be concentrating your efforts in other areas, such as calling for a ban on cars. Are Islamic terrorists killing 1,200 people every year in Australia, Sprinty? And, what about cigarettes? Are Islamic terrorists killing 18,000 people in our country every year, Sprinty? How about mass murders in Australia? Martin Bryant, Roger Kingsley Dean, Robert Paul Long, John Bunting, Robert Wagner, and James Vlassakis, Julian Knight, et al. Muslims? I don't think so, Sprinty. You see, you're not concerned about the safety of Australian citizens at all. You're just a regular Islamophobe, fueled by irrational fear & hatred, with a good sprinkling of ignorance. Tsk tsk    ::)

We are fortunate in that vetting and surveillance of Muss-lims here plus the very genuine warm welcome they got here (something many choose to refuse to accept as reality) have prevented outbreaks such as those Offshore....

It is the few that we need to weed out and get rid of for good.... lest they infect the whole barrel.... who can forget the US special forces doctor who opened fire at an assembly station for troops headed to Iraq and killed around 17 US soldiers (I think)?  Even your educated Mussos who've benefited mightily from the nation can turn into vipers....

You want to take that chance?

Karnal wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 11:00am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:29am: Auggie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:08am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:02am: Caeser - you attitude is to pretend nothing is wrong with islam. A lot is wrong with islam. being nice to bullies fails. don't you understand that your proposal would make things significantly worse? the fewer muslims in a country the fewer islamic terrorist attackes. Alas, Sprint, the facts hardly reflect your proposition. To my knowledge, Iran and Saudi Arabia have had no terrorist attacks. The largest Muslim country - Indonesia - has had about 4 in recent memory. The majority of terrorist attacks are carried out in countries engaged in civil war - Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan. Bordering countries also cop it - Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan. Terrorism nearly always has military motives or objectives. ISIS has been attempting to carve a state out of Iraq and Syria. Attacks in Thailand and the Philippines have been in response to military action as part of separatist campaigns. The cause of terrorism is not religion as such, but civil wars or independence struggles. Sri Lanka suffered similar attacks during their long civil war. The Tamil Tigers even invented the suicide bomb vest.

that is how a cult works.

iran and saudi are THE cult strongholds.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:07pm:

It is the few that we need to weed out and get rid of for good.... lest they infect the whole barrel....

That's right - just the few who present a problem.

No need to throw out the whole barrel.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 11:00am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:29am: Auggie wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:08am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 10:02am: Caeser - you attitude is to pretend nothing is wrong with islam. A lot is wrong with islam. being nice to bullies fails. don't you understand that your proposal would make things significantly worse? the fewer muslims in a country the fewer islamic terrorist attackes. Alas, Sprint, the facts hardly reflect your proposition. To my knowledge, Iran and Saudi Arabia have had no terrorist attacks. The largest Muslim country - Indonesia - has had about 4 in recent memory. The majority of terrorist attacks are carried out in countries engaged in civil war - Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan. Bordering countries also cop it - Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan. Terrorism nearly always has military motives or objectives. ISIS has been attempting to carve a state out of Iraq and Syria. Attacks in Thailand and the Philippines have been in response to military action as part of separatist campaigns. The cause of terrorism is not religion as such, but civil wars or independence struggles. Sri Lanka suffered similar attacks during their long civil war. The Tamil Tigers even invented the suicide bomb vest. that is how a cult works. iran and saudi are THE cult strongholds.

You know that iran has almost 3000 years of history?

don't use rhetorical questions.

You are an idealist who is wrong.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 10:02am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 9:35am: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 9:24am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 9:15am: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 8:01am: Auggie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:47pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 1st, 2017 at 8:42pm: The most cringe worthy thing is to know it is still happening, even here in OZ. Yes, but in Australia they are free to choose to wear it. There is no law against or for it. But since it isn't a right, we can easily make a nice little law and ban that sh1t for 'safety' reasons. If it's about 'safety', you'll have to ban these too: http://entertainmentstore.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/AFL6.jpg Absolutely, this is Australia it is what we do. We start with the terrorists first and then work our way down to mascots, if that is what you want. You have no idea how stupid you are, do you? You want to ban burkas for 'safety' reasons. i.e. you "think" (and I'm being very generous when I use that word) that a terrorist will use a burka to disguise themselves. So, using your "logic" (and again, I'm being extremely generous when using that term), a terrorist could quite possibly disguise themselves as a sporting mascot (thousands of people at sporting events, you know). Or, they could use a burns mask to disguise themselves, or a Halloween mask, etc. If, as you say, burkas need to be banned because of 'safety', you would have to ban all face coverings. You really didn't think that one through too well, did you? And, while we're on the subject of safety, why aren't you calling for a ban on backpacks? Backpacks are used by terrorists to conceal their explosives. Why aren't you demanding that legislation be introduced to forbid backpacks in all public areas? Is it because you're an extremely naive, ignorant, under-educated buffoon, or is it because you're just a regular garden variety Islamophobe, fuelled by irrational fear & hatred, who isn't concerned about safety at all but instead just wants the burka banned because you quite simply don't like the look of it? I'm genuinely curious. :-/

I made no such demands ya filthy fkken liar


I did say that:

1. wearing a burka was not a right

2. That it can be legislated against

3. It can be justified for 'safety reasons'

all of which is true

Now fkk off back into your liars hidey hole ya fkken dolt.


Also you wanted to ban mascot costumes hoping I would object, but if that is what you want to do then so be it.


As I have said it is what we do here in this country and we are damn proud of it.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:20pm:

3. It can be justified for 'safety reasons'

Please elaborate.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:20pm:

Also you wanted to ban mascot costumes hoping I would object, but if that is what you want to do then so be it.

No.

I don't want to ban anything.

You want to ban burkas, for safety reasons.

If those safety reasons are 'it covers the face', then you (not me - you) would also need to ban sports mascot costumes.

Those costumes completely disguise the person inside.

Do you want Halloween masks banned too?

And burns masks?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:29pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:20pm: Also you wanted to ban mascot costumes hoping I would object, but if that is what you want to do then so be it. No. I don't want to ban anything. You want to ban burkas, for safety reasons. If those safety reasons are 'it covers the face', then you (not me - you) would also need to ban sports mascot costumes. Those costumes completely disguise the person inside. Do you want Halloween masks banned too? And burns masks?

No read it again you cretin

That is not what I said

I know that as a muslim apologist that you depend on continuous lies to to shore up your feeble arguments. But for fkk sake, at least try a little of the other.



As I said before if that is what YOU want then so be it


I would personally rather ban the religion that causes these cvvnts to exist, rather than the sack that they make their fat ugly b1tchs wear.  :) :) :) :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:27pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:20pm: 3. It can be justified for 'safety reasons' Please elaborate.

The Australian government bans or imposes all sort of things through legislation for 'safety reason's if they want to ban the burka they can make up something to meet that requirement.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:29pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:20pm: Also you wanted to ban mascot costumes hoping I would object, but if that is what you want to do then so be it. No. I don't want to ban anything. You want to ban burkas, for safety reasons. If those safety reasons are 'it covers the face', then you (not me - you) would also need to ban sports mascot costumes. Those costumes completely disguise the person inside. Do you want Halloween masks banned too? And burns masks? No read it again you cretin That is not what I said I know that as a muslim apologist that you depend on continuous lies to to shore up your feeble arguments. But for fkk sake, at least try a little of the other. As I said before if that is what YOU want then so be it I would personally rather ban the religion that causes these cvvnts to exist, rather than the sack that they make their fat ugly b1tchs wear.

Your words: "But since it isn't a right, we can easily make a nice little law and ban that sh1t for 'safety' reasons".

What safety reasons?

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2017 at 12:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:27pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 12:20pm: 3. It can be justified for 'safety reasons' Please elaborate. The Australian government bans or imposes all sort of things through legislation for 'safety reason's if they want to ban the burka they can make up something to meet that requirement.

Such as?