LL condemn the recent Executive Order on Immigration

Amethyst Jetaime · February 5, 2017

You are using a false analogy.

Do you lock your doors in RL? I do. That's only to keep people out of my home that I don't want there. Same with people that use security orbs or ban lines because locks don't ensure privacy in SL. Anyone can just cam in and sit on something inside your home to get around them.

There is a big difference between assuring personal privacy and keeping people out of a country just because of their Muslim religion. Don't think that's what's behind it? Then why does Trump want to give 'christians' preference? It is unconstitutional for the goverment to give preference to a particular religion.

Pamela Galli · February 6, 2017

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

You are using a false analogy.

Do you lock your doors in RL? I do. That's only to keep people out of my home that I don't want there. Same with people that use security orbs or ban lines because locks don't ensure privacy in SL. Anyone can just cam in and sit on something inside your home to get around them.

There is a big difference between assuring personal privacy and keeping people out of a country just because of their Muslim religion. Don't think that's what's behind it? Then why does Trump want to give 'christians' preference? It is unconstitutional for the goverment to give preference to a particular religion.

Something that did not go down well with many Christians, btw:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/christian-leaders-denounce-trumps-plan-to-favor-christian-immigrants.html?_r=0

FellicityVixen · February 6, 2017

I always dislike when companies and brands voice their opinion of politics- mainly because 1) If I liked that brand but not their opinion, I'm at a conflict, 2) It gives the impression that the collective company or brand believe this, when in fact it may be the owners, bosses, etc and not every employee and 3) it gives the impression that the company or brand has some higher authority to support or not support whatever stance.

It also makes it awkward when, as we see, Trump was DEMOCRATICALLY voted. The same thing is happening in the UK, where many big names, banking experts, celebrities, politicians, even entire political parties, etc are against Brexit. And YET Britian voted to exit the EU. They would have to fly in the face of the democratic vote (and therefore publically discredit themselves) to try and wriggle out of not exiting the EU, but they are trying their damnest to do it anyways in a way that looks good.

However, I want to bring up another 2 points about something that someone said:

But to create a boundary that causes undue hardship on someone based on the color of their skin, their religion, or their sexual preference is unfair and demonstrates prejudice.
They should not be discriminated against and have less rights simply because they were born as a darker person, a woman, or a gay person.

1) I dislike this idea of someone having "less right" because of XYZ. For example, I do not believe that anyone in the world has the right to live anywhere they want (country wise). There is often a lawful process to go through to apply for citizenship, or to apply for asylum, or to apply for a work or student visa, etc. The idea that people get what they want because of this idealness, to me, is fanciful and unrealistic. For example, for both Japan and Australia (and perhaps other countries), if you want to live there you have to demonstrate a good level of the language, and prove you either have a trade, degree or job there- i.e. they aren't just letting ANYONE into those countries.

Personally, I wish people would dismiss this idea of prejudice, and instead work from it backwards. For example, in the UK they talk about how there aren't enough women in science careers, so they try to even out the statistics so more women are accepted. For me, that's disgusting to the amount of men who many be surperior in skill, but are penalised for being men. Instead, they could be looking at the stereotypes of men and women careers, looking at how media and school books could make science appeal to women more.

Or another example. They say that there's not as many black people employed in X type jobs as white people. They instantly think *oh, that must mean that the employers/interviewers are racist*. Instead, it could be that there's more of a white demographic in the area.

Or another more troubling example. There was a major organised crime in the UK that carried on for over 10 years. The reason the authorities (police, social work, politicans, etc) would not act against those known criminals was because, they were of a certain religion. They were labelled in the press as "Asian" at first, implying that they were Chinese, but not THAT sort of Asian. For anyone curious- look up Rotherham gangs (warning, it's really disgusting crimes).

So I think that this discrimination idea can actually lead to less meritocrity, and more of a reverse racism, where everyone who is often expected to be victimised actually gets the better chances of support and opportunity. Why not just treat everyone like individuals and equals in the first place, instead of this *let's not offend xyz*?

2) There is a paradox that the liberals (whither you believe yourself to be a liberal supporter, or believe in some, many or A LOT of liberal values- and I'd like to think most of the West believe in liberal values a lot).

The paradox is this: The tolerant will have to tolerate the intolerant.

Think on this. I believe this is the biggest issue with religion, because it is NEVER just about what God exists or what history and festival is true or good. It is often about the lifestyle rules and moral justifications that EVERYONE has. I would be happy to accept religion IF those same people could accept other peoples' non religions or different religions. Very often they don't. Islam in particular is very intolerant, and it is also very ironic that for a religion that lives in many war torn countries- but blames the West for many of those wars, deaths and failure to *take them in*, they also have plenty of religious laws that allow them to kill each other (and religious texts that allow them to kill without guilt).

So I do not think the issue is as simple as *oh their religion should be accepted*. I also think there's a culture that other countries have (especially in cultures very different to the West), that can actually be dangerous. And it is more likely to affect the everyday person in microactions, rather than massive terrorist violence.

I also personally believe that this war crisis will not be solved by other countries absorbing the refugee population while this terrible violence is happening, and then magically expecting things to go smoothly both with the refugees, and with the countries under fire getting restored.

This is all ONLY my opinion, and it isn't to say anyone else is wrong, or that what I say is what should be done. It is only how I see things. I also accept if others want to disagree- strongly if they feel so. I could be utterly wrong in what I think, and hope I don't come across as offensive-only explaining why I think how I do.

Tari Landar · February 6, 2017

I don't know about others, but I possess the capability fo being outraged, angry, upset, and any other emotion/feeling, as well as having opinions on, more than one thing at a time.

Perhaps that is a difficult concept for some(though I doubt it's a difficult concept for you to understand), but I don't personally understand why it would be.

I can be just as angry at parents that abuse and harm their children as I am about people being unnecessarily killed in other countries, regardless of who it is that commits the atrocity(ies).

I don't get involved in political discussions in places like this, because it tends to bring out some really nasty biases and that bothers me tremendously. I have a difficult time understanding how people can absolutely refuse to let go of certain biases to recognize the big picture, and it can make certain discussions difficult. Difficulty is not something I particulatly care for when I know it is a fruitless effort on my part...regardless of how strongly I feel about my own convictions. That said, there is something I would like to say on this specific topic....

Trumps ban, is not due to preventing terrorism, in any way, shape, or form. It is not designed to protect the US, or anyone on US soil(citizens or otherwise). It is not designed to appease the masses, or even smaller groups of people. It is not based in sound logic or reasoning, in any way. It was overturned because of these, and other, reasons. This is not the first ban/temporary hold the US has had, of a similar nature. Others were successful because they were based on sound reason, logic and with evidence that supported the implementation of such. This particular one will/would have fail/failed, if it had not been overturned(even if this is only a temporary state). The fact remains that Saudi Arabia is at least one of the countries that poses a much larger threat to the US, and Trump, specifically, excluded it form the ban. That country produces more than 80% of the foreign born terrorists worlwide. The countries included on the ban have contributed to the deaths of precisely 0 people on US soil...ZERO. Saudia Arabia, however, has contributed to, or caused, well over 2,369 deaths on US soil alone....and Trump says they are not a threat...

I have actually no problem at all with bans/temporary holds, when they are based on logic, reasoning, and have evidence that supports not only their proposal but their implementation. When security is concerned, my own personal biases regarding "well they're not ALL potential terrorists" sort of goes out the window. When my family, your family, strangers' families...on US soil are being threatened..I want to protect them, and I want others to protect them. That's a human instinct. This ban, however, has nothing to do with any current threats. It is baseless, lacks any and all evidence for even a proposal much less an implementation, and has caused so much more tension than I think most people can comprehend. People do not realize the actual impact it has had on others, all they know is what they have read. I have witnessed the impact firsthand....it's not pretty folks, it's really not. Not only have people been turned away, but they've been forced to return to areas that don't want them either. What exactly are we telling these people? "Sorry, you can't come in, you're dangerous". Yes, god forbid the doctors, students, even nurses that have helped save my and my child's life, be allowed back into a country in which they have lived for YEARS, a country in which they work their asses off, pay taxes, raise families, contribute to society, and cause no more problems than your average citizen in this country causes. The vast majority of them work towards citizenship while they do all of these things too, because our process can be very length(and I am not necessarily knocking that process). There is another side to this that many aren't seeing. They see "Oh, Trump says we're in danger...he has an idea to stop terrorists from getting in...let's do it!!!". What they don't see is that the vast majority of those being prevented entry...are NOT A THREAT!!!! They never have been, they never would be...and now we've got even more tension than we previously had....fabulous.

Now, if Trump provides us with a plan that is *actually designed to help protect us against Terrorists, I am all ears. My own personal biases regarding him, matter not. I let them go when it comes to important policies. Even the worst of the worst can have good ideas now and then, and I for one am open to hearing them....whether they come to fruition or not. But we do have countless other issues plaguing this country right now that, sadly, go unanswered. Instead, the country is now focused on this one thing, which isn't even remotely a good plan in the first place, to prevent something that wasn't happening/wasn't going to happen. All the while, we ignore everything else, not even just on US soil, but globally.

That brings me right back to the original point though...I DO care about all of those other issues, and there are so many of them that sometimes it is overwhelming to care so much about things. I do what I, as an individual, can do. I encourage others to do what they can do too. But I am merely one cog in the machine, and a rather insignificant one at that. I have no power when it comes to these issues, well, no *real power. I can voice my outrage until I am blue in the face. I can join and stand up with/for as many causes as I can possibly manage. It may never be enough, or rather, it may never be *good enough...but I still try, I still care, I still do it. I am sure that I am not alone. So, yes...people DO care, ARE outraged and DO want to see change....this particular issue has no bearing on our capability of doing so, whatsoever. Nothing stops me from caring, or having an opinion, except me, myself, and I.

Parhelion Palou · February 6, 2017

Pamela Galli wrote:

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

You are using a false analogy.

Do you lock your doors in RL? I do. That's only to keep people out of my home that I don't want there. Same with people that use security orbs or ban lines because locks don't ensure privacy in SL. Anyone can just cam in and sit on something inside your home to get around them.

There is a big difference between assuring personal privacy and keeping people out of a country just because of their Muslim religion. Don't think that's what's behind it? Then why does Trump want to give 'christians' preference? It is unconstitutional for the goverment to give preference to a particular religion.

Something that did not go down well with many Christians, btw:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/christian-leaders-denounce-trumps-plan-to-favor-christian-immigrants.html?_r=0

That's because many Christians have no clue what Christianity is about.

ChinRey · February 6, 2017

Parhelion Palou wrote:

That's because many Christians have no clue what Christianity is about.

A good point. Let's see what Jesus had to say about this:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?

And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

(Matthew 5:38-48)

Qie Niangao · February 6, 2017

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

You cant set up boundaries aimed at stemming very real terrorism but a barrier to protect the privacy of an animated figure is okay... talk about warped logic lol

Despite being obvious trolling nonsense, there may be a germ of an idea behind this analogy.

Those who've been around SL for any length of time know that there's no better way to attract griefers than to give them attention. Similarly, this ban is creating a generation of resentment, both foreign and domestic -- it's really the perfect way to recruit domestic terrorists, totally immune to even the strictest border bans.

Similarly, "very real terrorism" should never be cited as the reason for an action. Even if terrorism approaches a significant threat to normal people (remember, in the US more people are killed by toddlers with guns than by terrorists) -- even if that ever happens, and even if the state takes a meaningful response to the threat, it should never reveal that its actions are in response to that threat. It's counterproductive to wave the flag against the terrorists, proving to them how very effective they've been at messing up civilized psyches.

And also similarly, responsible officials never used the RWNJ's pet phrase, "radical Islamic terrorism" -- obviously the Trumpsters never learnt better than to taunt griefers.

(Oh, incidentally, I've never used banlines on any of my SL land and I've long argued that the whole idea of banlines is silly -- but not nearly as silly as equating them with border controls.)

Medhue Simoni · February 6, 2017

Tari, I never said you can't be outraged by more than 1 thing at a time. I was just pointing out that we have been dropping bombs on these very same nations for a very long time, without so much of a peep from LL, nor the from the residents of SL, via the forums. It is not logically consistent to not voice your outrage about the bombings, but then voice it when a new president does almost exactly the same thing as others.

As I feel the need to counter any hate that might come my way, for basically stating the obvious, I will elaborate on my views. Spiritually, I'm a buddhist. Politically, I'm a libertarian. Fiscally, I adhere to the Austrian School of Economics, which is free market capitalism to an extreme. Why am I all these things? Well, because they are all logically consistent to each other. All of them are against the use of force to accomplish goals. No, I did not vote for Trump.

I also feel that LL made a very bad move here because they are alienating half the nation that did vote for Trump. Go look at the electoral results map. What you see is that the people in the largest cities voted for Hillary, while many in the rural areas voted for Trump. Which do you think make up the majority of people in SL? I would venture to guess that it is the people in the large cities that are already here, and the people in the rural areas that don't even know what SL is. So, LL just alienated everyone that isn't in SL already, hence hampering their future progress.

This past year, I moved from the suburbs of Detroit to the middle of nowhere in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Nobody here knows anything about SL. Jobs here are rare, and most are shocked an amazed at what I do for a living. Do you really think the people here are going to see what LL said and want to jump right into this world? Think again!

OH, on a funny note. Many people here think I'm from 1 of the native american tribes in the area. You should see their faces when I tell them I'm half korean, part french, and irish.

Phil Deakins · February 6, 2017

FellicityVixen wrote:

It also makes it awkward when, as we see, Trump was DEMOCRATICALLY voted. The same thing is happening in the UK, where many big names, banking experts, celebrities, politicians, even entire political parties, etc are against Brexit. And YET Britian voted to exit the EU.

If I haven't been misled by posts in this forum, Trump was not democratically voted (elected). Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, but the electoral college system put him in office. I think the same thing happened with George Bush Jr. It's not the same as brexit. The brexit side won the popular vote and it was, therefore, truly democratic win.

ChinRey · February 6, 2017

Medhue Simoni wrote:

Which do you think make up the majority of people in SL?

Ummmm... Non-Americans actually.

Luna Bliss · February 6, 2017

ChinRey wrote:

Medhue Simoni wrote:

Which do you think make up the majority of people in SL?

Ummmm... Non-Americans actually.

I'm embarrassed to be an Amercian.

From here on out I'm from...India ;0

Aislin Ceawlin · February 6, 2017

Deja you slay me. I learn something everyday, and have never had a problem admitting when I am wrong. Not sure where you get your opinion about me from....could you please enlighten me with some factual examples?

Aislin Ceawlin · February 6, 2017

Like you show respect? Hmmm....You seem to be a snarky pest who doesn't know the definition of majority. Big difference between electoral college (an outdated system) and popular vote. MOST of America most definitely did NOT want him (by approx. 3 million)

Klytyna · February 6, 2017

FellicityVixen wrote:

Or another more troubling example. There was a major organised crime in the UK that carried on for over 10 years. The reason the authorities (police, social work, politicans, etc) would not act against those known criminals was because, they were of a certain religion. They were labelled in the press as "Asian" at first, implying that they were Chinese, but not THAT sort of Asian. For anyone curious- look up Rotherham gangs (warning, it's really disgusting crimes).

Just a useful FTI, here in Britain, the term 'Asian' is normally used for people from Bangladssh, Celon, India, and Pakistan, and NOT used to refer to people from China, who are usually refered to as Chinese, or Oriental.

FellicityVixen wrote:

2) There is a paradox that the liberals (whither you believe yourself to be a liberal supporter, or believe in some, many or A LOT of liberal values- and I'd like to think most of the West believe in liberal values a lot).

The paradox is this: The tolerant will have to tolerate the intolerant.

Think on this. I believe this is the biggest issue with religion, because it is NEVER just about what God exists or what history and festival is true or good. It is often about the lifestyle rules and moral justifications that EVERYONE has. I would be happy to accept religion IF those same people could accept other peoples' non religions or different religions. Very often they don't. Islam in particular is very intolerant, and it is also very ironic that for a religion that lives in many war torn countries- but blames the West for many of those wars, deaths and failure to *take them in*, they also have plenty of religious laws that allow them to kill each other (and religious texts that allow them to kill without guilt).

You seem to think that religions are supposed to be tolerant, and that somehow the believers fail their religions by failing "to tolerate the intolerable."

Mono-Theistic Religions are NOT tolerant, never have been never will be, this is an inherent design feature...

The followers of Koomi, God of Toaster Ovens, the One True God, who'e most sacred of days is Tuesday, all KNOW that believers of other FALSE so-called gods are fools and criminals and terrorists who eat babies and vote Demopublican and want to take away True Believers Rights to shoot the UPS guy for trespass when he delivers their parcel from Amazon!

"You can take away mah garbage, Mr. Garbage-Man but you can never take mah Fee-Dumb! Taste mah .30-06, Demopublican voting commie filth tresspasser! Murica Rulez! Praise Koomi! Rawr!"

This executive ban, is an opportunist facist, playing to the mob, with a dumb idea that will increase the hatred of the 'enemy' while doing nothing to stop them attacking you, but doing an awful lot of harm to people whose suffering can be traced back and laid squarely at the door of the Muricans who helped creat the damn problem in the first place, over half a century ago.

You want to ban potential terrorists from the US, ban people from Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, because they are the ones who carried out the 9/11 attacks,

Murica's former number 1 most wanted, old Osram bin Lightbulb, was a Saudi business man, thats how he had the start-up cash to found his terror group.

For many years Saudi Arabia was one of the worlds largest exporters of small arms, despite not making a single gun, because they were also one of the worlds largest importers of small arms. Mega rich oil tycoons donating 1/40th of their vast oil income as charity (a requirement of their religion, one christianity lacks), but defining 'charity' as supplying weapons to pro islam warlords and fanatics all across the middle east and africa, hence why Somalia at one point, had more AK-47's than PEOPLE.

But... Saudi's are rich, they buy Murica Brand War Toys, and they supply shiploads of fuel for Murican Pickup Trucks, so, anti terror initiatives, meh...

ChinRey · February 6, 2017

Luna Bliss wrote:

I'm embarrassed to be an Amercian.

It goes like this: some Americans are criminals, therefore all Americans are criminals.

That's the kind of stereotyping this is all about of course. The one thing all nations in the world have in common, is that the vast majority of the citizens are just ordinary people, neither particularly good nor particularly bad.

Unless you deliberately chose to be born in a specific country so that you could grow up to become a terrorist, don't be ashamed of it.

Klytyna · February 6, 2017

Luna Bliss wrote:

I'm embarrassed to be an Amercian.

Pretend you are Canadian... Then you can indulge in those amazing Canadian only things, like, proper bacon, better beer, and of course, their unique hobby.

Did you know Canadians keep French people as pets and train them to play icehockey?

Something to respect about Canada because it's more than anyone else has ever been able to do...

FellicityVixen · February 7, 2017

Ahh, someone commented that Trump was NOT democratically elected- and I apologise as I did not realise that US voting worked similar to the UK. We have a *first past the post* system with our regions as well- causing parties who may have an overall higher % to "score" lower seats(seats= wins) within each region.

Klytyna, you've made some excellent comments regarding some of my paragraphs.

I am not 100% convinced about the *Asian* generalisation, as usually when I see it, it's the inclusion of Middle East and Far East. BUT you're probably correct about it. I agree that Oriental usually makes the distinction- but it's not a term I hear very often compared to Asian for Koreans/Chinese/Japanese,etc, and perhaps it's just me.

But the articles I did read about the gang crimes in this case were being described as *Asian* when they were known to be a particular religion and country. Again, I want to make a disclaimer that I am NOT saying ALL of them are criminals for being that religion and country- only that it put a fear of being racist of those two factors as a huge barrier for the authorities. The crimes themselves were the most disgusting, and should never be excused in ANY country- but particularly in the West for all their human rights laws and standard of living, etc. They did not want to be accused of being *certain word*-phobic, a word often thrown about when someone happens to be related to that religion is portrayed negatively.

As for religious tolerant, I never really thought about religions being intolerant on purpose(except in some that I strongly dislike). I've always thought they tried to teach people to be good, friendly to thy neighbour, not kill anyone, etc etc. However, I suppose a certain amount of exclusion and exclusivity has had to happen with most of them to survive over time and remain distinct. BUT.....when it comes to certain religious teachings (regardless of the religion, so I'm not targetting any), I think the current laws and morals of today has to make people see more sense. For example, I would have thought love between two adult people of ANY gender (or genderless-ness) should not matter, so long as they are happy, consenting and want to be married. I feel sad that there are many bad things happening that many religions could TRY to change, and instead they want to tell people who they can bond with in prescence of God. ___(I'm sorry if this opinion offends, disgusts or otherwise angers people)___

As for the banned countries......I did wonder at the choice myself. I had read that it was an action decided by Obama that Trump simply put through- but I don't know if that is even true. I also believe that two VERY corrupt countries- one of which you mentioned (SA), the other being connected to the Rotheram crimes(P)- would have been more suitable for bans if they had any suspicions of them. However, like you said, money is corrupting the politics here. Perhaps those countries are even as dangerous to attempt to limit as they are being left to their own devices!

I don't really know how to feel about immigration policies really- because on one hand those countries need help with their refugees, and I kind of believe that the richest should use their wealth, power and influence to make sure the poorest do not die. On the other hand, there is so much devestation happening throughout Europe with the deficits, high unemployment, funding cuts, austerity measures and public service cuts, as well as mass immigration just causing non-intergration changes, that I'm not sure accepting huge numbers is wise for other reasons (compared to say foreign aid, sending volunteers, setting up safe areas closer to their countries, helping neighbouring countries take more refugees of similar backgrounds, better refugee tracking/aid/housing/protection at borders,etc). But the big difference is that Europe has it's policies and hands tied by the EU- whereas America is a whole different ball game for many different reasons!

I mean, I personally think that America wouldn't put up with half the crap that has been happening in Europe, and rightly so. And that isn't to insult Europe, the EU, America OR the immigrants/refugees coming in. It is purely my opinion of this culture clash going on, and the structures (politically, socially, globally, etc) that is fuelling/limiting/driving/containing all this.

Tari Landar · February 7, 2017

Klytyna wrote:

FellicityVixen wrote:

Or another more troubling example. There was a major organised crime in the UK that carried on for over 10 years. The reason the authorities (police, social work, politicans, etc) would not act against those known criminals was because, they were of a certain religion. They were labelled in the press as "Asian" at first, implying that they were Chinese, but not THAT sort of Asian. For anyone curious- look up Rotherham gangs (warning, it's really disgusting crimes).

Just a useful FTI, here in Britain, the term

'Asian'

is normally used for people from

Bangladssh, Celon, India, and Pakistan

, and

NOT

used to refer to people from China, who are usually refered to as Chinese, or Oriental.

FellicityVixen wrote:

2) There is a paradox that the liberals (whither you believe yourself to be a liberal supporter, or believe in some, many or A LOT of liberal values- and I'd like to think most of the West believe in liberal values a lot).

The paradox is this: The tolerant will have to tolerate the intolerant.

Think on this. I believe this is the biggest issue with religion, because it is NEVER just about what God exists or what history and festival is true or good. It is often about the lifestyle rules and moral justifications that EVERYONE has. I would be happy to accept religion IF those same people could accept other peoples' non religions or different religions. Very often they don't. Islam in particular is very intolerant, and it is also very ironic that for a religion that lives in many war torn countries- but blames the West for many of those wars, deaths and failure to *take them in*, they also have plenty of religious laws that allow them to kill each other (and religious texts that allow them to kill without guilt).

You seem to think that religions are supposed to be tolerant, and that somehow the believers fail their religions by failing "to tolerate the intolerable."

Mono-Theistic Religions are

NOT

tolerant, never have been never will be, this is an inherent design feature...

The followers of Koomi, God of Toaster Ovens, the

One True God

, who'e most sacred of days is Tuesday, all

KNOW

that believers of other FALSE so-called gods are fools and criminals and terrorists who eat babies and vote Demopublican and want to take away True Believers Rights to shoot the UPS guy for trespass when he delivers their parcel from Amazon!

"You can take away mah garbage, Mr. Garbage-Man but you can never take mah Fee-Dumb! Taste mah .30-06, Demopublican voting commie filth tresspasser! Murica Rulez! Praise Koomi! Rawr!"

This executive ban, is an opportunist facist, playing to the mob, with a dumb idea that will increase the hatred of the 'enemy' while doing nothing to stop them attacking you, but doing an awful lot of harm to people whose suffering can be traced back and laid squarely at the door of the Muricans who helped creat the damn problem in the first place, over half a century ago.

You want to ban potential terrorists from the US, ban people from

Saudi Arabia

and

United Arab Emirates

, because they are the ones who carried out the 9/11 attacks,

Murica's former number 1 most wanted, old

Osram bin Lightbulb

, was a

Saudi

business man, thats how he had the start-up cash to found his terror group.

For many years

Saudi Arabia

was one of the worlds largest exporters of small arms, despite not making a single gun, because they were also one of the worlds largest importers of small arms. Mega rich oil tycoons donating 1/40th of their vast oil income as charity (a requirement of their religion, one christianity lacks), but defining 'charity' as supplying weapons to pro islam warlords and fanatics all across the middle east and africa, hence why Somalia at one point, had more AK-47's than PEOPLE.

But... Saudi's are rich, they buy Murica Brand War Toys, and they supply shiploads of fuel for Murican Pickup Trucks, so, anti terror initiatives, meh...

I would like to just go right on ahead and umm..ditto, this post. You've said what I wanted to, and chose not to, much better than I could have, if I did.

Simply put, this ban is NOT what people think it is...it's really not. One of the most scary aspects, for me, and perhaps others, is the fact that so many do not understand what it is and why it would have failed/did fail/got overturned, versus similar practices we have had in the past.

It is NOT a ban put in place to protect us, at all. If it were, the most dangerous threats would not have been specifically excluded.

Klytyna · February 7, 2017

FellicityVixen wrote:

I am not 100% convinced about the *Asian* generalisation, as usually when I see it, it's the inclusion of Middle East and Far East. BUT you're probably correct about it. I agree that Oriental usually makes the distinction- but it's not a term I hear very often compared to Asian for Koreans/Chinese/Japanese,etc, and perhaps it's just me.

No, it's not just you, more accurately it's probably your generation, more exposure to Murican corruption of Contemporary English via film/tv/internet.

You must have seen examples of British people refering to people being 'black', being attacked by Muricans screaming that we have to call them 'afro-murican' despite the prefered term for 'afro-British' people amongst themselves is 'black British' since most do not in fact come from africa, plus the fact that we actualy have real africans here, genuine wild africans... from africa.

FellicityVixen wrote:

As for religious tolerant, I never really thought about religions being intolerant on purpose(except in some that I strongly dislike). I've always thought they tried to teach people to be good, friendly to thy neighbour, not kill anyone, etc etc.

Even the most cursory examination of the history of mainstream monotheistic religions, shows intolerance is order of the day from day 1.

The quasi mythical Jesus person... People often quote those nice pat lines about turning the cheeks etc., but you usually don't hear quites like "sell your cloak and by a sword" or "I come not to bring peace but a sword" and certainly don't hear that a more likely origin of the term Nazzarene is actually the Nasoreans, an extreme jewish splinter sect, siminar to the essenes but far more militant, think "roman hating jewish communist terrorists of the first century c.e", and then theres that cool battle cry "render unto caesar that whci is caesars, render unto god that which is gods! which actually is more likely to have meant...

"Judea for the Judeans! Romans Go Home! ..and take your blasphemous money with pictures on it with you!"

As for loving diversity and accepting people who love each other? The first christian sect to be declared heretics were the Carpocratians, who read the 2nd gospel of mark, and decided (correctly) that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and (probably incorrectly) that he slept with her brother Lazarus, and as a result, founded the First Church of Jesus Bisexual.Swinger. The officlal church was so concerned by the idea of a version of christianity where sex was not only ok but encouraged, and the effect it would have on sales of Pauline Stoic fun-hating christianity v 2.0, that they burned every single copy of marks 2nd gospel and informed on Carpocratians to the roman authorities as 'terrorist insurgants'.

The funny part is... marks 1st gospel was the fact lite pr recruiting leaflet, but the 2nd was the official training manual for christian bishops, so for 19 centuries their religon has been working without the damn instructions!

ChinRey · February 7, 2017

Klytyna wrote:

The quasi mythical Jesus person... People often quote those nice pat lines about turning the cheeks etc., but you usually don't hear quites like "sell your cloak and by a sword"

To be fair, Jesus didn't actually allow them to use those swords, they were just for show.

But really, in my experience what people see in their religion is a mirror image of themselves. Good people find reason to do good deeds in their religion, bad people find excuses for their bad deeds in exactly the same religion. It doesn't only apply to montheistic one either, even buddhism, probably the most pacifistic of all major religions, has often been used as an excuse for agressive warfare.

Klytyna wrote:

and certainly don't hear that a more likely origin of the term Nazzarene is actually the Nasoreans, an extreme jewish splinter sect,.."

That's a very interesting and tempting start for a religious-philosophical-linguistic-psychological discussion but it may be a bit off topic here. How about reading Isac Asmiov's essay "Lost in Non-Translation". He used a slightly different example but had some very good thoughts abut the issue.

Pamela Galli · February 7, 2017