JFKvsNixon Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Who decides which beliefs are acceptable and which are not and should be banned. So far I don't think he has advocated killing anyone, which is something that can't be said about the Koran. I'm not arguing that he should be banned, so you're going to have to backtrack a bit. I'm just saying that it's not hypercritical to ban some one from entering the country who has one set of beliefs, and allowing others or have a different set of beliefs in. So my point is - it's the belief itself that warrants whether or not someone should be banned, not just having a belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Yes it has caught on since I started using it in the Shaker Aamer thread . I think the aim is to prevent the number of civilians being murdered reaching World War Two levels . Whats unprecedented about it though? JFK you got any answers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betterman Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I'm not arguing that he should be banned, so you're going to have to backtrack a bit. I'm just saying that it's not hypercritical to ban some one from entering the country who has one set of beliefs, and allowing others or have a different set of beliefs in. So my point is - it's the belief itself that warrants whether or not someone should be banned, not just having a belief. Its hypercritical to ban him for the bleiefs he holds if you also condemb him for wanting to ban people because of the beliefs they hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Its hypercritical to ban him for the bleiefs he holds if you also condemb him for wanting to ban people because of the beliefs they hold. No it's not, it's all about what the beliefs actually are!!! For example, is it hypocritical to allow Christians into our country whilst at the same time banning anti-Semitic people? ---------- Post added 08-12-2015 at 22:06 ---------- Whats unprecedented about it though? JFK you got any answers? Are we into our 14th unprecedented year of the War on Terror? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betterman Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 No it's not, it's all about what the beliefs actually are!!! For example, is it hypocritical to allow Christians into our country whilst at the same time banning anti-Semitic people? An Hypocrit is person who engages in the same behaviour he condemns others for. Trump wants to ban people because of the beliefs they hold. If you condem him and also want to ban because of the beliefs he holds you are engaging in the same behaviour making you an hypocrit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 No it's not, it's all about what the beliefs actually are!!! For example, is it hypocritical to allow Christians into our country whilst at the same time banning anti-Semitic people? ---------- Post added 08-12-2015 at 22:06 ---------- Are we into our 14th unprecedented year of the War on Terror? Gamston keeps going on about unprecedented, just wondering if it means anything? What makes this current thing about terrorism unprecedented? Because its more dangerous? Becayse its killed more civilians than any other war? If its the 14th year, then its going to be never ending as we will switch from one terror organisation to another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 An Hypocrit is person who engages in the same behaviour he condemns others for. Trump wants to ban people because of the beliefs they hold. If you condem him and also want to ban because of the beliefs he holds you are engaging in the same behaviour making you an hypocrit. So you believe that someone would be a hypocrite for wanting to ban an anti-Semite from the country but also at the same time as allowing in a Christian? I disagree, I'd say that banning someone who has highly offensive, or potentially illegal views is different from banning someone who is a member of one of the mainstream religions. ---------- Post added 08-12-2015 at 22:15 ---------- Gamston keeps going on about unprecedented, just wondering if it means anything? What makes this current thing about terrorism unprecedented? Because its more dangerous? Becayse its killed more civilians than any other war? If its the 14th year, then its going to be never ending as we will switch from one terror organisation to another? This unprecedented war seems to have set a precedent doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betterman Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) So you believe that someone would be a hypocrite for wanting to ban an anti-Semite from the country but also at the same time as allowing in a Christian? No they would be an hyocrite if they condembed someone for wanting to ban something they don't like whilst banning something they don't like. I disagree, I'd say that banning someone who has highly offensive, or potentially illegal views is different from banning someone who is a member of one of the mainstream religions. That would make you an hypocrit. Wanting to ban people that you find offencive whilst condemning people for wanting to ban people they find offencive is hypocritical. If I wrote a book calling for the killing of all believes I am sure it would be banned, yet for some reason a book calling for the killing on all non believers isn't banned. Edited December 8, 2015 by betterman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 No That would make you an hypocrit. Wanting to ban people that you find offencive whilst condemning people for wanting to ban people they find offencive is hypocritical. If I wrote a book calling for the killing of all believes I am sure it would be banned, yet for some reason a book calling for the killing on all non believers isn't banned. Hang on a second, I was talking about the same thing in my post!!!!! The highly offensive, or potentially illegal views was the anti-Semite, and the mainstream religion was Christianity. So can you explain how I wasn't being hypocritical in one part of my example, but then you thought I was being hypocritical in the second part of the same example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betterman Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Hang on a second, I was talking about the same thing in my post!!!!! The highly offensive, or potentially illegal views was the anti-Semite, and the mainstream religion was Christianity. So can you explain how I wasn't being hypocritical in one part of my example, but then you thought I was being hypocritical in the second part of the same example? You didn't condem anyone for doing has you did. You can ban anything you like without being an hypocit, but the moment you condem soemone else for banning something they don't like you become an hypocrit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now