Immigration

[TenEightyOne]

Only one person has so far made that claim (with no concrete evidence to boot), are you joining in now?

Do you deny that this is a point which Sjunneson has made repeatedly in public? Do you think Sjunneson's organised marches past mosques have had zero effect on the local population?

 

[Johnnypenso]

But surely it was started by one of the 60 Minutes presentation team calling them paedophiles, rapists etc?

Then you propogate the hatred by calling them sub-human?

You yourself would hate to be policed even in something as simple as language, why should other people just suck up orders about how to live their lives.

In a civilized society, you don't run people over with your car or throw objects at them for being called names you don't like. I haven't heard the term "started it" since my son was in the first grade.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In other news... Channel 9 confirm they were working with Sjunneson but deny his claim that he was "partnering" with "his" 60 minutes crew. He never stops.

 

[Scaff]

I haven't heard the term "started it" since my son was in the first grade.

Good job that wasn't what was actually said then isn't it. Please don't reword what someone has said in an attempt to prove a point; an invalid point at that, as the initial protagonist in a dispute is a perfectly valid point of discussion. Particularly as it wasn't even stated as a point of fact, but rather a question.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Good job that wasn't what was actually said then isn't it. Please don't reword what someone has said in an attempt to prove a point; an invalid point at that, as the initial protagonist in a dispute is a perfectly valid point of discussion. Particularly as it wasn't even stated as a point of fact, but rather a question.

But surely it was started by one of the 60 Minutes presentation team calling them paedophiles, rapists etc?

Then you propogate the hatred by calling them sub-human?

You yourself would hate to be policed even in something as simple as language, why should other people just suck up orders about how to live their lives.

 

[Scaff]

Which is not "started it" as you said, its also a question and not a statement of fact (which your selective highlight ignores).

If you are going to quote what someone has said then do so accurately.

 

[mister dog]

Which is not "started it" as you said, its also a question and not a statement of fact (which your selective highlight ignores).

If you are going to quote what someone has said then do so accurately.

If the unrest was 'started by' a cameracrew, wouldn't that mean they 'started it'?:

 

[Scaff]

If the unrest was 'started by' a cameracrew, wouldn't that mean they 'started it'?:

And were they the exact words used? No.

Was it stated as a 'playground dig' as claimed? No.

So perhaps you can put aside the theatrical digs and distractions and actually answer what was a perfectly reasonable question.

 

[squadops]

So perhaps you can put aside the theatrical digs and distractions and actually answer what was a perfectly reasonable question.

But surely it was started by one of the 60 Minutes presentation team calling them paedophiles, rapists etc?

The answer is no, their hostility has been taught to them and to be quite frank if they don't like it there they should leave.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The answer is no, their hostility has been taught to them and to be quite frank if they don't like it there they should leave.

Are you talking about the Swedes who held Pride marches outside mosques and through areas where they knew Somalis lived (roundly denounced by most of the gay community), the Australians who seemingly saw an opportunity for some shock-jockery or the Somalian (apparently) bystanders who acted like thugs? Or all of them? It'd be a quiet thread if they all left, in fairness

 

[squadops]

Talk about twisting

Seeing as your question was directly related to the 60 minutes team, do I really need to give the answer to that? Somalian bystanders who are thugs.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Way to tar everyone with the same brush.

 

[squadops]

Way to tar everyone with the same brush.

Did you watch the video or are you just going to keep on rambling nonsense? How is a few people considered everyone?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How is a few people considered everyone?

Because you never qualified your statement:

Somalian bystanders who are thugs.

This implies that all Somalians in the area are thugs, not just the Somalians in the video.

 

[squadops]

My lord you guys are so silly sometimes, the question was specifically asked about what happened in the video and who was to blame, nothing more than that.

You are seriously telling me you do not understand this statement?

Seeing as your question was directly related to the 60 minutes team, do I really need to give the answer to that? Somalian bystanders who are thugs.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Which is not "started it" as you said, its also a question and not a statement of fact (which your selective highlight ignores).

If you are going to quote what someone has said then do so accurately.

"It was started by" is effectively the same as "started it". To me the question is clearly rhetorical in nature.

This implies that all Somalians in the area are thugs, not just the Somalians in the video.

No, it doesn't.

 

[squadops]

No, it doesn't.

I'll give him credit for at least realizing I have a viewpoint on the larger picture, he just assumed the wrong one.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No, it doesn't.

If only we had somebody whose entire job hinged on a detailed knowledge of sentence construction and could therefore decide one way or the other ... oh, wait, we do have somebody like that.

squadops would have us believe that the "60 Minutes" crew were minding their own business in a neighbourhood with a high migrant population when they were coincidentally joined by a notoriously outspoken and aggressive anti-Muslim advocate at time when they just happened to be reporting on the way Sweden's liberal immigration policies were allowing brutal, parasitic thugs into the country and were in turn undermining Swedish values and western democracy. And then without warning or precedent, they were attacked in the middle of the street - but not before they had just enough time to get their cameras out and record the whole thing. squadops would also have everyone believe that anyone who points this out is an advocate for people going around attacking others in the street, even though nobody who pointed this out has ever actually said that. The irony is that you're defending the canera crew on the grounds of free speech, even though there isn't a single definition of free speech that includes provocation or incitement to violence.

A very different version of the footage was broadcast on Australian televsion. It was clearly trying to make out that it was an unprovoked attack, but it has obviously been edited and misrepresents the incident. Nobody here believes that "60 Minutes" were completely innocent victims, except maybe the United Patriots' Front (and they would be hilariously inept if they weren't so terrifying dogmatic) - so much so that "60 Minutes" chose not to upload the footage onto their website.

 

[squadops]

TL;DR, plus tooting your own horn rather poorly. My comment makes perfect sense to anyone without a motivation to read something into it that is not there.

Seems like a very simple conversation if you ask me 👍

(not Somolians who are not thugs, Somolians who ARE thugs, do you speakie the engrish?)

 

[prisonermonkeys]

TL;DR

Everybody else has shown you the courtesy of reading your comments in full before replying. Why should you be held to a different standard? And how can you expect anyone to respect you when you so plainly don't respect them?

tooting your own horn rather poorly

That's what we call an ad hominem attack - an attack on the man, not the argument. It's usually the last resort of people who have run out of room to make an argument of their own, but are proud, too stubborn and/or too stupid to recognise that they haven't got a leg to stand on. Once again, it's a complete lack of respect for the people you are debating with, and more importantly, it's against the AUP.

 

[squadops]

Holy cow batman, you could admit at any moment just how clear my response to Scaff was. You don't ever want to think that one of these immigrants could be hostile without provocation, that is absurd.

Perhaps if you didn't write a whining novel I'd read it, and as for a personal attack? Check yourself would ya? No one cares that you are a high school english teacher, all they will see is you claim I don't know how to write.

 

[Tornado]

That's what we call an ad hominem attack - an attack on the man, not the argument.

Except the argument in question was predicated largely on you making an appeal to your own authority (or, at least, I think that was the point behind the self aggrandizement on display).

So no. It's not.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That doesn't invalidate the way he implied that all Somalis are thugs.

 

[squadops]

You mean to say you inferred?

Sooner or later someone will actually say something about immigration again.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That's even worse. At least with an implication you could then claim ignorance. To infer means that you have consciously made the connection that all Somali migrants are violent thugs based on the actions of a small handful.

So let me infer something: all "compassionate conservatives" are bigoted and in denial about it because they would rather believe that they are brining about good in the world. I see the actions of a minority - that's you - and make a direct connection to every other "compassionate conservative". Now, I know that you will vehemently protest this as being unfair and not representative - but in inferring that all Somalis are violent thugs, you have done the same thing. So that makes you a hypocrite and a bigot.

 

[squadops]

Think what you like, you are looking rather foolish.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why, because I don't have half a dozen like-minded people liking every post that I make?

All that you have done is successfully convince me that you are a bigot.

 

[squadops]

Unfounded name calling and yet more foolishness. I guess it is not fathomable that a Somali could be a thug.

 

[Scaff]

How about everyone stops with the personal attacks and digs?

 

[Johnnypenso]

If only we had somebody whose entire job hinged on a detailed knowledge of sentence construction and could therefore decide one way or the other ... oh, wait, we do have somebody like that.

squadops would have us believe that the "60 Minutes" crew were minding their own business in a neighbourhood with a high migrant population when they were coincidentally joined by a notoriously outspoken and aggressive anti-Muslim advocate at time when they just happened to be reporting on the way Sweden's liberal immigration policies were allowing brutal, parasitic thugs into the country and were in turn undermining Swedish values and western democracy. And then without warning or precedent, they were attacked in the middle of the street - but not before they had just enough time to get their cameras out and record the whole thing. squadops would also have everyone believe that anyone who points this out is an advocate for people going around attacking others in the street, even though nobody who pointed this out has ever actually said that. The irony is that you're defending the canera crew on the grounds of free speech, even though there isn't a single definition of free speech that includes provocation or incitement to violence.

The irony is that I'm not defending the camera crew at all, I'm just not willing to leap to the same conclusions as you without evidence to support myself. If you could ask this person with detailed knowledge of sentence construction to come and join us, he might be able to point that out to you.