A fathers rights

[Русский агент]

You wrote "you are in favor of unlimited Muslim migration and respecting their "customs", aren't you?" so what exactly are you getting at?

FGM is one of the customs practiced by many Muslims. Many Muslims seek to enter the US. You advocate allowing their entry without regard to their customs or religious beliefs, don't you? Unless you're advocating a vetting process that somehow keeps FGM practitioners from entering the US legally, you're in favor of allowing FGM, aren't you?

 

[Русский агент]

My apologies. I thought you were savvy enough to understand my shorthand, all things considered, but guess I was wrong.

Hilarious. Your failure to write succinctly and express yourself correctly is my fault?

 

[christiefan915]

Hilarious. Your failure to write succinctly and express yourself correctly is my fault?

See post 302 as an example of unclear writing that called for more explanation.

 

[christiefan915]

FGM is one of the customs practiced by many Muslims. Many Muslims seek to enter the US. You advocate allowing their entry without regard to their customs or religious beliefs, don't you? Unless you're advocating a vetting process that somehow keeps FGM practitioners from entering the US legally, you're in favor of allowing FGM, aren't you?

You're speaking in generalities and supposition again.

Also, this is fallacious. "Many Muslims practice FGM. Many Muslims seek to enter the US." Ergo, Muslims entering the US practice FGM. No, they don't, unless you can show proof.

If you want to see a vetting process by all means work for it. I could support that also. It's the indiscriminate banning I can't support.

 

[Русский агент]

See post 302 as an example of unclear writing that called for more explanation.

How so?

I'll understand if you can't explain.

 

[Русский агент]

You're speaking in generalities and supposition again.

I am? How's that?

Also, this is fallacious. "Many Muslims practice FGM. Many Muslims seek to enter the US." Ergo, Muslims entering the US practice FGM.

What I said wasn't fallacious. What you added is the fallacy.

No, they don't, unless you can show proof.

You need proof that many Muslims practice FGM? Or do you need proof that many Muslims seek to enter the US?

If you want to see a vetting process by all means work for it. I could support that also.

I don't believe you. I don't think you support any vetting of Muslims at all.

It's the indiscriminate banning I can't support.

What "indiscriminate banning'?

 

[christiefan915]

I am? How's that?

What I said wasn't fallacious. What you added is the fallacy.

Wrong. You can't tie those two comments together without it being fallacious. If many Muslims practice FGM and many Muslims seek to enter the US, it doesn't automatically follow that those who want to enter the US practice FGM. Then to compound your screw-up you wrote "You advocate allowing their entry without regard to their customs or religious beliefs, don't you?"

I don't think anybody's religious beliefs should preclude their entry into the US. If someone's custom constitutes a crime in the US, i.e. FGM, then the question gets murkier. Performing FGM on anyone under the age of 18 became a felony in the United States with the passage of the Female Genital Mutilation Act in 1996.

You need proof that many Muslims practice FGM? Or do you need proof that many Muslims seek to enter the US?

Proof that Muslims who seek to enter the US are practitioners of FGM.

I don't believe you. I don't think you support any vetting of Muslims at all. What "indiscriminate banning'?

As in trump's travel ban on those from seven Muslim-majority countries.

 

[J Craft]

I am? How's that?



What I said wasn't fallacious. What you added is the fallacy.



You need proof that many Muslims practice FGM? Or do you need proof that many Muslims seek to enter the US?



I don't believe you. I don't think you support any vetting of Muslims at all.



What "indiscriminate banning'?

I applaud your efforts in the circular house where Cfan lives. You are doing a fabulous job, but I fear it pointless.

BTW her hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[Русский агент]

Wrong. You can't tie those two comments together without it being fallacious.

The fact is that Y O U concocted a conclusion that I never reached and attributed it to me, and linked a question I asked (which you misrepresented) in your desperate attempt to gin up an argument. That's a strawman fallacy, isn't it?

If many Muslims practice FGM and many Muslims seek to enter the US, it doesn't automatically follow that those who want to enter the US practice FGM.

Nobody said that it does, except Y O U, and you falsely tried to claim that was my conclusion.

Then to compound your screw-up you wrote "You advocate allowing their entry without regard to their customs or religious beliefs, don't you?" I don't think anybody's religious beliefs should preclude their entry into the US.

So the answer to my question is...?

If someone's custom constitutes a crime in the US, i.e. FGM, then the question gets murkier. Performing FGM on anyone under the age of 18 became a felony in the United States with the passage of the Female Genital Mutilation Act in 1996.

Dead white male Samuel Clemens wrote, "laws are sand, customs are rock". He was right, apparently, because FGM is still practiced by Muslims living in the US. I guess they don't care about infidel laws.

Proof that Muslims who seek to enter the US are practitioners of FGM.

I have proof that Muslims who are already here practice FGM. I suppose you could deny that they wanted to enter the US, or that there are "many" of them. Want to give that a try?

As in trump's travel ban on those from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Executive Order 13769 lowered the number of refugees to be admitted into the United States in 2017 to 50,000, suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, suspended the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, directed some cabinet secretaries to suspend entry of those whose countries do not meet adjudication standards under U.S. immigration law for 90 days, and included exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Homeland Security lists these countries as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. A redrafted executive order was issued March 6, 2017. The redraft drops Iraq from some the provisions regarding the seven countries specified by executive order 13769. The redraft executive order removes the exemption for religious minorities in the banned countries that was present in the first order. The redrafted order does not apply to green-card holders or anyone with a valid visa who is inside the U.S. The redrafted order includes case-by-case waiver process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769

So there is no "indiscriminate banning", is there?

If Hillary had issued the same order you'd be defending it, wouldn't you?

 

[Русский агент]

I applaud your efforts in the circular house where Cfan lives. You are doing a fabulous job, but I fear it pointless.

BTW her hypocrisy knows no bounds.

That's well-known. Someday I hope to lead her to enlightenment.

 

[christiefan915]

That's well-known. Someday I hope to lead her to enlightenment.

That's not what you said before and we both know it.

Throwing your lot in with a bigot and pedo supporter like the odious J Craft, that's rich.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That's not what you said before and we both know it.

Throwing your lot in with a bigot and pedo supporter like the odious J Craft, that's rich.

And who is this "pedo" that she's supposed to be supporting?

 

[christiefan915]

The fact is that Y O U concocted a conclusion that I never reached and attributed it to me, and linked a question I asked (which you misrepresented) in your desperate attempt to gin up an argument. That's a strawman fallacy, isn't it?

This is what you wrote: "FGM is one of the customs practiced by many Muslims. Many Muslims seek to enter the US. You advocate allowing their entry without regard to their customs or religious beliefs, don't you?" Explain why you wrote the first two sentences. You could have written "Jizya is one on the customs practiced by many Muslims. Many Muslims seek to enter the US." But you didn't. You chose a horrible criminal practice instead. It was just a smear.

Nobody said that it does, except Y O U, and you falsely tried to claim that was my conclusion.

Then you should have used a less incendiary term in your quest to smear all Muslims.

So the answer to my question is...?

What I wrote above: I don't think anybody's religious beliefs should preclude their entry into the US.

Dead white male Samuel Clemens wrote, "laws are sand, customs are rock". He was right, apparently, because FGM is still practiced by Muslims living in the US. I guess they don't care about infidel laws.

And the ones who were discovered were prosecuted and convicted.

I have proof that Muslims who are already here practice FGM. I suppose you could deny that they wanted to enter the US, or that there are "many" of them. Want to give that a try?

The same proof I have, one doctor in 2006 and one in 2017? Because if you have proof there are more it's incumbent on you to report them.

Executive Order 13769 lowered the number of refugees to be admitted into the United States in 2017 to 50,000, suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, suspended the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, directed some cabinet secretaries to suspend entry of those whose countries do not meet adjudication standards under U.S. immigration law for 90 days, and included exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Homeland Security lists these countries as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. A redrafted executive order was issued March 6, 2017. The redraft drops Iraq from some the provisions regarding the seven countries specified by executive order 13769. The redraft executive order removes the exemption for religious minorities in the banned countries that was present in the first order. The redrafted order does not apply to green-card holders or anyone with a valid visa who is inside the U.S. The redrafted order includes case-by-case waiver process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769

So there is no "indiscriminate banning", is there?

So it's discriminate banning due to religion? So much better.

If Hillary had issued the same order you'd be defending it, wouldn't you?

No I would not. I thought it was clear that I support immigrants coming to the US no matter their religion. Maybe you're just thick.

 

[christiefan915]

I sure hope Rana can save you from a ban after that slur.

Why would I get banned for referring to the odious J Craft's support of Josh Duggar?

 

[Русский агент]

This is what you wrote: "FGM is one of the customs practiced by many Muslims. Many Muslims seek to enter the US. You advocate allowing their entry without regard to their customs or religious beliefs, don't you?" Explain why you wrote the first two sentences. You could have written "Jizya is one on the customs practiced by many Muslims. Many Muslims seek to enter the US." But you didn't. You chose a horrible criminal practice instead. It was just a smear.

It's two statements of fact and a question. We are discussing FGM and Islamic abuse of women and girls. If you think jizya is related, I can't help you.

Then you should have used a less incendiary term in your quest to smear all Muslims.

I don't recognize your authority to dictate what I say. Can you think of a reliable way to separate FGM-practicing Muslims from the rest?

What I wrote above: I don't think anybody's religious beliefs should preclude their entry into the US.

What you meant is that you don't think Muslims should be denied entry to the US, regardless of their customs, isn't it? Fortunately, you don't get to make that decision for the rest of America. Hillary lost.

And the ones who were discovered were prosecuted and convicted.

Think that's any comfort to the girls they cut and scarred for life? What about the ones who haven't been apprehended? Any thoughts about their victims?

The same proof I have, one doctor in 2006 and one in 2017? Because if you have proof there are more it's incumbent on you to report them.

If you only have two examples you aren't trying. I doubt you'd report a Muslim practitioner of FGM if you saw them mutilating girls in front of you.

So it's discriminate banning due to religion? So much better.

I don't recall seeing the term "religion" used as a prohibitive factor.

No I would not. I thought it was clear that I support immigrants coming to the US no matter their religion. Maybe you're just thick.

You support open borders, don't you?

BTW, "thick" is generally used as an insult in Britain and in Commonwealth countries. You aren't British. It's a ridiculous and pretentious affectation in a Palooka.

 

[christiefan915]

It's two statements of fact and a question. We are discussing FGM and Islamic abuse of women and girls. If you think jizya is related, I can't help you.

I don't recognize your authority to dictate what I say. Can you think of a reliable way to separate FGM-practicing Muslims from the rest?

What you meant is that you don't think Muslims should be denied entry to the US, regardless of their customs, isn't it? Fortunately, you don't get to make that decision for the rest of America. Hillary lost.

Think that's any comfort to the girls they cut and scarred for life? What about the ones who haven't been apprehended? Any thoughts about their victims?

If you only have two examples you aren't trying. I doubt you'd report a Muslim practitioner of FGM if you saw them mutilating girls in front of you.

I don't recall seeing the term "religion" used as a prohibitive factor.

You support open borders, don't you?

BTW, "thick" is generally used as an insult in Britain and in Commonwealth countries. You aren't British. It's a ridiculous and pretentious affectation in a Palooka.

It's clear you're just looking for reasons to argue. Nobody could be this willfully obtuse in interpreting my comments. Not only that but in willfully projecting your biases and suppositions on me.

Are you a British linguist? My spelling certainly seems to bother you, ice slut. I can recall numerous instances of someone here using Britishisms not so long ago. Now who would that be?

I wonder....

 

[christiefan915]

You'll find out, unless Rana, Billy, Damo and Grind decide that you weren't approaching the line to see what you could get away with.

The mods no doubt read all the threads where the odious J Craft and I argued over Josh Duggar's actions. And there's no doubt you read those threads either. So say my records.

 

[evince]

You'll find out, unless Rana, Billy, Damo and Grind decide that you weren't approaching the line to see what you could get away with.

she could just bump his posts

 

[christiefan915]

PM'ed Rana already?

Nope. But feel free to follow my Current Activity just in case.

 

[J Craft]

And who is this "pedo" that he's supposed to be supporting?

Fixed that you.

It’s a twisted conflated cfan thing. It’s her MO.