robp135
Naybet
I do not beleive in mandatory vaccines. Same as Luton & Marty.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Sick sick world what is wrong with people
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
I do not beleive in mandatory vaccines. Same as Luton & Marty.
MartyFunkhouser
Garth Crooks
But the way they got to that point eventually and fairly was revoking travel of those fans who were proven trouble, policing the individual not the mass, by not assuming all Spurs fans were trouble. Unless I am reading it wrong and I could well be, your way of dealing with it would be the opposite??? Also if not it goes back to Luton point, how the hell do you police it when not everyone is the same, regardless where they come from. You can't just assume someone is going to marry their cousin based on where they come from otherwise we would have cut off the access route to Canvey Island years ago (joke for anyone who may be from the reclaimed land)
robp135
Naybet
You can pinpoint the regions where the most extreme religious elements exist and focus on those with stricter protocols. You won't get everybody but it would have some level of impact.
I used the example of vaccines not just because of our previous debate but because I was required to get some additional vaccines as part of my Visa approval. I would have been refused entry in to the US had I not provided the documentation showing I had got them even though I had already lived in the US on a student visa for several years.
thfcsteff
Ricky Villa
Indeed, just saw it (was replying in flow).
Essentially you appear to be pointing out the different degrees of belief within faiths, religions, and societies. Some are extreme takes. I think we all sadly accept that. You are suggesting that it is perhaps 'easy' to filter the more 'extreme' thoughts defined as such by our societal definition. In theory, if I could quietly refuse entry to members of (say) a violent extremist group annexed from a religion, great. In practice? Virtually impossible, not the least of which because sadly, due to the atrocities and loss suffered globally on a daily basis, more extremists are created where there were previously none. Imagine your home being bombed, your family decimated, when all you want is to live your life! Survivors stand a huge chance of becoming radical. Sadly unsurprising; we can't even go three pages here without anger breaking out!!!
Polarization is the greatest of enemies. The more we run and hide, the more we cry differences, the less we understand what we have in common versus not, the more extremism wins (and with it fat cats getting fatter).
I am all for proper immigration controls. I am all for keeping bad people and influences out. Equally, I think it is VITAL we recognise the ENORMOUS amount of richness immigration and multi-culturalism brings. We all have much to learn. I agree with those who say when moving here it is important to integrate, but equally that should be a balance. We can never forget the lands we 'took' and the cultures we 'appropriated'. We should, IMO, never stop trying to come together where possible.
This is obviously an enormous subject, but for me, when agents of fear and hate look to actively polarise people off the back of disgraceful isolated acts of violence, we must resist, we must be brave and we must double down.
Fear is a mindkiller...
MartyFunkhouser
Garth Crooks
Bravo
robp135
Naybet
I agree with a lot of what your saying here.
Where I would disagree is I do think, especially with the developments in technology, we can do a much better job at knowing who is coming in to the country and who is not. If we don’t know, we should not be letting them in. Especially if you are here as a male without a family.
My question back would be who is responsible for the lands we took? Most of that was before we were born. Most of the country objected to the war in Iraq. Most of the US objects to the war with Iran. Their involvement in WW2 wasn’t even popular at the time. Why is it on the citizens of those countries?
MartyFunkhouser
Garth Crooks
Its not about it being on those citizens but it has to come with a level of understanding. Not to go deep on Gaza, but it only stands to reason that what is going on is going to create a displacement of people, thats going to impact everywhere eventually as is Iran and whats happening in the Middle East. I don't see a huge level of objection to that TBH, in large part the actions seems to be supported, thats not to say people then deserve what comes after or its their responsibility, but the question is "what do you expect".......
Not to sound like a hippy, we all have a responsibility to how the world is being shaped
Last edited:
robp135
Naybet
From what I can see following UK media and what I see in the US, I think the objection to what’s going on the the Middle East right now is on a huge level. We’ve had people win local elections in both countries with a notable pro Palestine/anti Israel message even though their role as a local politician has virtually no impact on international affairs.
In my view it will be virtually impossible for the next Democratic candidate to for President to be viewed as anything other than anti Israel and the next Republican candidate will face serious competition from an anti Israel candidate.
thfcsteff
Ricky Villa
I have always felt we have common ground despite also having several areas of disagreement.
I accept your argument about technology is worth investigating, and I think the biggest issue there is two-fold. One, we simply cannot account for variables in terms of who ends up becoming radicalized versus who isn't. The other aspect is really one of personal choice; do we sadly accept that there will always be 'wrong uns' in all societies, all communities, all classes, colors, and creeds? I think we must because it is a fact. And then comes the crunch; do you let the evil and ignominious few destroy things for everyone?
Your final question is also a matter of opinion at this point. There are some who believe that because it is not of this generation (or many before) that such 'debts' as they might be defined are (at this point) in the past and we should all move on. That thought can be applied to many things in history I suppose. My personal feeling is that we must always acknowledge the sins of our colonial past whilst accepting that we cannot alter what happened and also that we cannot be solely responsible for continuing reparations so-to-speak. However I personally do feel we have responsibilities to uphold, and that also includes in the modern era. You mentioned Iraq, and I agree, most opposed, yet we still went there and are still part of wrecking a region and destabilizing the lives of millions. I would argue we need to accept that (collectively with our allies) and continue to find ways to try and help those societies rebuild (aside from which it would IMO be the smart thing to do as well). I accept this is not something everyone will agree with. I also accept it will cost money. IMO that money can be found (within, for example, miitary budgets.
Tangenting off that, I would personally also do better with veteran affairs/PTSD support. We ruin young lives sending them to parts of the world most people don't understand, let alone 19-20 year olds who can barely heat a tin of soup...
thfcsteff
Ricky Villa
Nail on head. We do. And we must do whatever we can, even if it is just being kind to a stranger who looks like they need it. Another thing govenments must do is stop gaslighting people about 'caring' for the crisis of others in order to score public opinion points. I'll leave it there for now, if anyone wants to get into this, I'll bring the tea and you bring the biscuits!!!!!