jacee Posted November 12, 2015 Report Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Common sense that women should be prioritized over men? No, that is misandry. I'm not making that argument. You intentionally misrepresented my post.I said it's common sense that children are first priority and need their parents to support them, mothers and fathers. . Edited November 12, 2015 by jacee Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted November 12, 2015 Report Posted November 12, 2015 No, it's common sense that children are first priority and need their parents to support them, mothers and fathers. You are purposely misreading what is written to be difficult, aren't you? 'or are a woman' Quote
jacee Posted November 12, 2015 Report Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) You are purposely misreading what is written to be difficult, aren't you? 'or are a woman' You are misreading: "woman ... at risk" I'm stating my opinion: Children first, with their parents. . Edited November 12, 2015 by jacee Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted November 12, 2015 Report Posted November 12, 2015 You are misreading: "woman ... at risk" Yes, but not men at risk. Sexist double standard. Quote
jacee Posted November 12, 2015 Report Posted November 12, 2015 Yes, but not men at risk. Sexist double standard. Men are not excluded: "in immediate physical danger, are survivors of violence or torture, have medical needs" . Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted November 12, 2015 Report Posted November 12, 2015 "in immediate physical danger, are survivors of violence or torture, have medical needs" That's not men at risk. Your cognitive dissonance levels must be quite high if you don't see the clear sexist double standard. Quote
August1991 Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Interesting that no one has mentioned prioritizing children and their caregivers, mostly parents. I'd think that's first priority.Women and children first. Jacee, are you Victorian? Uh, Conservative? And surely, by either measure or even as Liberals now, when accepting any refugee from the Middle East, we should accept more Christians. Or homosexuals. ==== Trudeau Jnr has stated that we will not accept any single men. How many gay men will be refused because of this edict? Edited November 30, 2015 by August1991 Quote
jacee Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Women and children first. Jacee, are you Victorian? Uh, Conservative? And surely, by either measure or even as Liberals now, when accepting any refugee from the Middle East, we should accept more Christians. Or homosexuals. ==== Trudeau Jnr has stated that we will not accept any single men. How many gay men will be refused because of this edict? I said parents. That includes fathers.If you check I think you'll find that homosexuals may be prioritized as vulnerable people if they are at risk for hate crimes. "Not accept ANY single men" is an exaggeration. Why 'should' we accept more Christians? I think people are prioritized according to their needs/circumstances and our need for security. I don't believe discrimination based on religion should be a criterion, except where targeting for hate crimes is an issue. . Edited December 1, 2015 by jacee Quote
Argus Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 If we accept that single men are statistically more likely to be dangerous than married men should we not also accept that Muslims are statistically more likely to be dangerous than Christians? I bet we could find 25,000 Christians amid the millions who have fled Iraq and Syria. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 If we accept that single men are statistically more likely to be dangerous than married men should we not also accept that Muslims are statistically more likely to be dangerous than Christians? I bet we could find 25,000 Christians amid the millions who have fled Iraq and Syria. I am hoping that they are reevaluating the whole 'single men' thing. I think it's dangerous to leave a lot of them behind, lonely, disconnected, disaffected, impoverished and vulnerable to extremist propaganda and recruiting. Argus your religious discrimination is well known here, but not everybody thinks that way. If I wanted to discriminate based on my personal views, I would choose people of no religion at all. But there should not be religious discrimination in selecting refugees, except where there is risk of hate crimes. . Quote
Argus Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 I am hoping that they are reevaluating the whole 'single men' thing. I think it's dangerous to leave a lot of them behind, lonely, disconnected, disaffected, impoverished and vulnerable to extremist propaganda and recruiting. So you would rather have these people in Canada, where they are also vulnerable to extremist propaganda and recruiting? Argus your religious discrimination is well known here, but not everybody thinks that way. Not everyone is as smart as me, you mean, and able to judge things logically? I fear that is true. Nevertheless, the undeniable fact is that Christians are far more in danger in that part of the world, and would not present us with the security fears Muslims do. But there should not be religious discrimination in selecting refugees, except where there is risk of hate crimes. . Well, there is more risk of hate crimes from Muslims against Jews and gays then there would be from Christians. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) So you would rather have these people in Canada, where they are also vulnerable to extremist propaganda and recruiting?Oh blather! ?I'd rather they not separate a young man from his parents and siblings just because he's 21, leaving him in a place where his only hope of earning a living might be to join ISIS. Not everyone is as smart as me, you mean, and able to judge things logically? I fear that is true.Discrimination against a whole group of people betrays a laziness or a poverty of intelligent thought.Nevertheless, the undeniable fact is that Christians are far more in danger in that part of the world, and would not present us with the security fears Muslims do.Risk and danger are part of the screening process, applied as needed.Lazy thinkers like you want it to be made easy for them. The people actually doing the selection know it isn't as simple as discriminating against a religious group. The crazies carrying out terrorism in the world don't represent any religion despite their crazy claims. They are just violent homicidal, suicidal, sociopathic disaffected deranged people who latch onto extremism to express their disturbed thinking, to take revenge on somebody for their inner turmoil and pain. Do abortion clinic killers represent all Christians? I don't think so. Do people who target African Americans represent all white people? No ... and I'm not sure they even represent all racist kkk/white nationalists either. Do all white nationalist cheer such deaths of black people? I don't know. It's possible some of them think it reflects badly on their group. If a man yells "God is great" as he attacks someone, is he really doing it with God's blessing? With the blessings of his religion? With the blessings of all people of the same faith? I don't think so. I think he's just a maniac. . Edited December 1, 2015 by jacee Quote
kimmy Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 Trudeau Jnr has stated that we will not accept any single men. How many gay men will be refused because of this edict? How many gay men would self-identify as such in the midst of an environment where doing so could bring a high likelihood of getting beaten or killed? The women and children in these refugee camps are living in terror and sexual violence is epidemic in the refugee camps. In terms of protecting people from imminent danger, getting the women and children out of the refugee camps ASAP is the obvious highest priority. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Lots of adult males are assaulted or killed in refugee camps. Why do women and children get a higher priority ? This is not 1912... Edited December 1, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 So you would rather have these people in Canada, where they are also vulnerable to extremist propaganda and recruiting? Sure. It'll give us a good reason to stop doing things that leave people behind, lonely, disconnected, disaffected, impoverished and vulnerable. The bonus is that would mean doing things you also can't stand even worse than refugees like building a more comprehensive social safety net, increasing taxes on people like you to pay for it and ensuring greater economic justice etc etc. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 Lazy thinkers like you want it to be made easy for them. Sure, why not? Christians are in more danger than Muslims anyway, just as gays are. Why not embrace the logic that we should grab those who are most in danger. And the fact neither group is likely to want to embrace terrorism in Canada is a nice added plus. The people actually doing the selection know it isn't as simple as discriminating against a religious group. It actually is, you know. The crazies carrying out terrorism in the world don't represent any religion despite their crazy claims. They are just violent homicidal, suicidal, sociopathic disaffected deranged people who latch onto extremism to express their disturbed thinking, to take revenge on somebody for their inner turmoil and pain. And Muslims. You forgot that, somehow. Muslims. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) The bonus is that would mean doing things you also can't stand even worse than refugees like building a more comprehensive social safety net, increasing taxes on people like you to pay for it and ensuring greater economic justice etc etc. The taxes on people like me are already high so the country can pay for people like you. I don't need more people coming here who won't be contributing to the tax base. As for what I contribute, I've talked to an accountant and we meet next month. He assures me there are ways to lower the tax burden I'm currently saddled with. Edited December 1, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Sure, why not? Christians are in more danger than Muslims anyway, just as gays are. Why not embrace the logic that we should grab those who are most in danger. And the fact neither group is likely to want to embrace terrorism in Canada is a nice added plus. It actually is, you know. And Muslims. You forgot that, somehow. Muslims. Some call themselves Muslims.Some call themselves Christians. Some call themselves Jews. . Quote
Argus Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 Some call themselves Muslims. Some call themselves Christians. Some call themselves Jews. . But you've decided YOU will be the judge of whether they are or not? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Posted December 2, 2015 But you've decided YOU will be the judge of whether they are or not? I've decided Muslims, Christians and Jews can decide whether terrorists represent their religion. They generally distance themselves. . Quote
August1991 Posted December 7, 2015 Author Report Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) How many gay men would self-identify as such in the midst of an environment where doing so could bring a high likelihood of getting beaten or killed? The women and children in these refugee camps are living in terror and sexual violence is epidemic in the refugee camps. In terms of protecting people from imminent danger, getting the women and children out of the refugee camps ASAP is the obvious highest priority. -k Gays, women, children. Whatever. Kimmy, you've lost your point. ==== In 1942, someone had to get in a plane, get on a boat or get in a tank. In general, it was a straight male. IMHO, the world today is a better place because of these guys who got on these things. Edited December 7, 2015 by August1991 Quote
Guest Posted December 7, 2015 Report Posted December 7, 2015 I've decided Muslims, Christians and Jews can decide whether terrorists represent their religion. They generally distance themselves. . Actually, the terrorists can decide themselves whether or not they are Muslims, Christians or Jews. Other Muslims, Christians or Jews don't get a say. Quote
kimmy Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 Gays, women, children. Whatever. Kimmy, you've lost your point. ==== In 1942, someone had to get in a plane, get on a boat or get in a tank. In general, it was a straight male. IMHO, the world today is a better place because of these guys who got on these things. No, I'm on point. The women and children in the refugee camps are in high danger of sexual violence. Gay men in those camps are in no more danger than straight men, up until the point where people find out they're gay. I have no idea what you're getting at regarding 1942, unless you're suggesting that the men in those camps should get in tanks and go make the world a better place. Perhaps they should, but clearly they've decided not to, and have chosen instead to swarm into Europe looking for an easier life. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Argus Posted December 8, 2015 Report Posted December 8, 2015 No, I'm on point. The women and children in the refugee camps are in high danger of sexual violence. Gay men in those camps are in no more danger than straight men, up until the point where people find out they're gay. And Christians are obviously in danger throughout that whole area, which was why the previous government had prioritized them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Actually, the terrorists can decide themselves whether or not they are Muslims, Christians or Jews. Other Muslims, Christians or Jews don't get a say.Really?Even when violent criminals distort a religion to justify horrific acts? http://www.ethicsdaily.com/an-accurate-look-at-timothy-mcveighs-beliefs-cms-15532 It doesn't matter whether a person practices the beliefs, only matters what they 'say' they are? I think I have a problem with that reasoning. . Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.