You see what happens when you take away the rest of what was written, gun ownership and refugees are entirely different topics, i'd be happy to discuss it in another thread but their isn't much I have to say as I believe their needs to be more in place to purchase a gun and more tests/restrictions.
so to clarify you do or do not hold the opinion that 1 of X is worth a thousand of Y? or are you trying to make it seem like that is a belief I hold? nevermind perhaps it was simply a catchy thing to quote and I am overanalyzing it. I must repeat that I disagree, both represent a danger to innocents, and while you want to limmit the danger of guns they remain far more dangerous and subject to far less restrictions than refugees. so safety is not the only reason by which you formulate your stances, which is fine. but I doubt the validity and nature of the unknown variables behind your conclusion. we could write down a selection of statements and then come up with arguments for and against these while boiling down the reasoning behind the arguments and counterarguments I think a lot of problems arise from there being uncertainty about what is meant by statements made by all sides of this issue and consequences of actions that people might not be aware of, like take for instance "we should stop the entry of refugees into our countries" we can answer yes or no, however I would say: No, because: this means that refugees ( since they cannot very well be left in the mediterranian accumulate in Italy, the Balkans, or Turkey. or closer to the conflict zone, this will drain the resources of these countries. unless they expend little on the refugees, meaning refugees will starve or be forced into criminality or prostitution ( including children).this economic load is the reason the EU is trying to distribute the refugees to prevent anger over others not doing their part or leaving them with the load. so in my case I would say the arguments against the statement are: humanitarian/economic/diplomatic ( do you agree?) this can of course be worked out further. (This does not mean I am against trying weed out potential terrorist, nor do I disagree that people should be dissuaded from trying the dangerous mediterranean crossing or employing human traffickers.) I think we can learn a lot about eachother if we try to discuss the arguments for and against in this fashion.
Where I come from nobody I know wants refugees. People were protesting everywhere the government wanted to build a refugee centre. The highlight being a protest of around 5k people where they blocked the site with their tractors and trucks. The only people pro refugees had a protest in the capital. They only numbered 1000 people and when I saw them on tv they were mostly comprised of middle aged women. Their spokeperson looked angry all the time and basically said if you are against this you are islamophobic, xenophobic, racist etc. I never thought this will happen here (Slovenia)... Thanks Obama. Nobody wants a sudden influx of refugees. That's common sense. Trust me the people you see here on the forums are not representative of Europe's mindset. And they have probably never been even close to a refugee camp. It's easy to scream racism on a forum and feel good about yourself.
the polarisation is not good and above is exactly the reason why we need to disperse the refugees across europe and not keep them all in slovenia and the like. ( some sure) I do not understand the last part, of course nobody wants refugees but we do need to handle them in a way that does not create giant crime riddled refugee camps but organized ones that the local communities can handle and support, let me asure you that the mindset you describe is not representative of most of Europe who just want to live in peace without ignoring a complex humanitarian issue To pretend that one side is painting the other with broad strokes while doing the same is hardly a good way to handle the debate. it sounds like the proposed refugee centers are in the eyes of the community too big compared to the size of the towns they would be located in correct? that is a valid concern. since a large influx of strange people in a small town would feel weird and unsafe for the longtime residents. so if there can be an agreement of the ratio of local/refugee things can be worked out. You have to admit though a lot of the issues are driven by fears, if these fears are unfounded or larger than they should be it is a phobia. and even then we should try to find a compromise. just because someone is unreasonably scared of strangers or muslims, a xenophobe or islamophobe, does not mean they should be ignored and live in fear. I would go so far as to say that calling someone a xenophobe or islamophobe as an insult is a bad thing. do we derisively call people scared of clowns coulrophobes and people who panic at the sight of a spider a dirty arachnophobe? no. the minority of people who protest against refugee centers are real racists or nationalists. the majority are people with real concerns and fears. founded or unfounded. who need to be listened to and spoken to so a solution can be found. .... can I go back to just calling you all names and being a trollish ****? this is tiring.
Gerben do the work for me. But yeah, just to clarify. If there were no refugees Id be happier (?), not really the right word but you feel me. However, the way I see it there is no "sorry ******** option". The US and Merkel are to thank for that. The refugees gotta go somewhere. Its that or die in the war. Lets not pretend thats an option. So do I wish that countries like Saudi-Arabia would take some in? Sure, but theyre a terrible country to begin with. Im not saying "wir schaffen das" and bring them all in. Im saying bring in the ones in need and in reasonable quote. Were all human beings here. Do I deserve safety and prosperity more than them because I was born in a better place? If you're willing to work, feel free. If youre not and/or have bad intentions, then get ****ed, just like Belgians. I dont differentiate between different nationalities of scum. Just whether they are scum or not.
I think the problem I see is a lot of Europeans on the forums live in nice areas where they won't really be affected as much, it's similar to how Merkel goes bring em all in and then walks around with her security team and expensive house with security there also. I was in different parts of Europe in September 2016 and it was not what it usually was in certain areas, and I don't know if I have the desire to go back for a long period of time.
You guys have pulled a 180 real quick, your saying exactly what i've been saying for so long, I don't mind refugees, what I mind is criminal elements coming into our countries due to poor vetting. If Europe and America would take their time and properly vet these people i'd be more okay with it, but when you have a large influx of people with no identification it's very hard to properly vet them all and this leads to terror attacks. Their wasn't really any plan made either, like once the refugees got to Europe they should have had something in place where they could start being productive members of society right away. Another big thing I don't like is the fact that a lot of the refugees seem to be men of fighting age and that bothers me a bit. America and Europe could have come up with better solutions to this problem, and instead we jumped right into letting them all come here and it started with the media in Europe and America. Realistically I wish the United States would get the Firk out of the Middle East, their culture will never allow for a normal form of government and it's been that way over there forever. Culturally Muslims will never adapt to the European or American way of life, and eventually this will lead to problems, I hope not but it's inevitable.
I have not. this is exactly like the gun debate again where people want no gun control but yes background checks and licensing ( gun control) we simply want the situation handled in a way that reduces the amount of human suffering. I have already told you that you do not generally send women and children into an unknown enviroment first. ( human sex trafficking is not something refugees want to throw family members into either) the fact that young men are at a higher risk of being attacked or maimed or conscriptedand even in relatively safe areas during a civil war, and the reduction in the influx of fighting age men and a rise in women and children travelling to the safe places these men found for their families. I think you have previously ignored those when I mentioned them briefly.
what the Firk has given you this impression? they are immigrating illegally and have to file for refugee status or can choose to enter the naturalisation tract however if they are denied these they will still be sent away, the Berlin bus terrorist would have been sent back to Africa except that country said "we don't believe this guy is ours. and you can't prove that he is." which is an entirely different issue. I know the US has sent hispanic looking US born citizens straight to south america ( even when they could not speak a word of their destinations native language) without a second thought but that can't be the system. *how Europe feels about the US* exceot there are many that have succesfully done this? is this a bad time to bring up the Americans living in Guam, Mariana islands, Virgin islands and American Samoa who are not allowed to vote because they, being savage not white anglo-saxon christians would never understand democracy?
Except last I checked the United States didn't kill people for being gay, and women have rights in America. I don't understand why Europeans think the United States is so terrible, their is a reason people from all over the world and from Europe want to come to the United States.
What gun debate thing, and don't lump me in with people. I'm all for stricter background checks and licenses, I don't understand why you keep bringing this up. With each post your getting further and further off the main topic, you and burn have both said now you wish refugees weren't coming to Europe ? The bottom line is you argued against me this whole time and then agreed, I just don't see what their is even to discuss at this point. Do you want refugees in Europe ? @BurnPyro @Geressen
Forgive me some snark. your terrible sense of when there, their and they're should be used for starters. I'll try to explain... sometimes people agree that something must be done but disagree about what and how. do you sometimes feel like that causes you problems? that list ended comically short and with painfull accuracy about which groups have what going for them. a similar question is: do you want children who'se parents were murdered in foster care. the answer is no, I do not want refugees in the same way that I do not want orphans. but they exist and we will not let them starve or die or become slaves. do you understand now?
Insults, and didn't answer my question. Thanks again for further proving my points. A simple yes or no would suffice, but that seemed to taxing for you.
I told you to forgive me some snark, you are the one with the skin so thin it gets torn when you fart and a lack of understanding so great if it would be placed on the border with mexico none would ever be able to cross.
And just think, me, Sok, and others do this sort of thing all the time! While I do agree with this personally, I don't think that other nations should force a given nation to take them in if they don't want to. Especially since many nations (and regions within nations) have different socio-economic factors to keep in mind. I think we all recognize that refugees are a burden, at least initially. While people can take on as much of that burden as they are able and willing... it's not something that should be forced on others. As I understand it, the EU nations with open borders between them have no real way to avoid sharing the burden if even one of them takes in refugees (not that all of them would want to avoid it in lieu of helping people), which obviously sparks contention. There was that thread @Sokolov posted a while ago about the Canadian that helped a bunch of refugees and people responded to that with: "why didn't you help Canadians"? My response then is the same as it is now, what people choose to help with their charity should be their choice. Likewise with a government (and it should be up to the government's constituents to dictate what they actually want, within the jurisdiction of that government, though it doesn't always work out that way, but that's the laws and systems that are in place). Trump, at least, for example, has decided to allegedly focus on helping Americans, and thus rejecting the burden of refugees and the very likely (small number of) terrorists hidden among them. While the 9th Circuit has continued to suspend Trump's orders, seeing what I can of the law (and past similar actions, including by Democrats) I do expect that to be overturned by the Supreme Court in due time, probably even if it was still 8 Justices by the time it's heard (but who knows, hatred of Trump could easily blind people to law). Of course, I'm not accusing your or BP or anyone else of forcing anything. You guys are merely making arguments and statements of opinion, which I enjoy reading, even if I don't always fully agree with what's said.
No you misunderstood, the insults don't bother me it's the fact you don't answer anything or add anything to the discussion typically that agitates me. Your giving me a politicians answer, beating around the bush and never really answering the question, and deflecting and changing the topic consistently. Do you want refugees in Europe, a simple yes or no. @Geressen @BurnPyro
I have not changed the subject you think of it that way because your mind is one track, one way, no curves. which as far as tracks go is pretty useless. I have multiple times now answered and you do not understand, I explained and you claimed I changed the subject. have you considered the problem here might be your hardware?
thank you, I do not want to force anything either and I understand the aprehension. I think saving a thousand at the cost of a single terrorist getting past the INITIAL physical and administrative border is acceptable, I like to think it is similar to innocent till proven guilty, better to let a criminal go rather than sentence an innocent man, I see no reason to apply a guilty untill proven innocent to refugees, those that are most vulnerable and need the most help.
Topical Diversion: A while ago, I had written a response to this, talking about how it seems the West's propaganda strategy is to blame Russia for everything. Trump's election, Brexit vote results, and even threw out that they are probably blaming the relative rise of Le Pen and Wilders and such on Russia, though I hadn't heard anything to that point. I had shelved it, in favor of focusing on the thread's topic (which is not Russia so much) and not getting mired in a side issue but... Earlier today I heard about this: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/0...ch-worry-about-election-hacking-by-russia.cnn And I just couldn't help but laugh.
