The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > What could go wrong with this stupid decision.

What could go wrong with this stupid decision.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
//Ah Toni, I'm gonna have fun here making you look stupid.//

Wow, doing a great job there buddy...

//Firstly all modern terrorist attacks are by Muslims / Islam//

No they're not. I'm not sure when you think the modern era starts - I'm assuming you've invented your own definition rather than accepting the ones historians use because you're anti-education - but you're wrong. The Troubles were an example of modern terrorism, as was the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Oslo bombing/Utoya Island mass shooting. And so on, and on, and on. I don't know why you're so upset about the idea that some terrorists were Irish, but making shite up won't help.

//did you forget that fact//

No, because it's not a fact. A fact is a true statement, not a statement made by yourself. You seem to have trouble telling the difference.

//Too 'PC' to admit the terrorist gene is the Islam gene?//

Now hang on, that doesn't make sense at all. How can religion be hereditary when both my parents are Catholic and I'm a pantheist? How can one religion be hereditary but not others? I'm starting to wonder if you're really the expert on genetics you claim to be.

//Hell, go right ahead and lock yourself up and throw away the key if you feel so strongly about it//

Why? My parents have never done aught wrong, so therefore I have never done and will never do aught wrong. Because that's how heredity works, apparently.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 28 September 2017 5:57:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You still don't get it..
This is 2017 and facts are most if not all terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims.
(Oklahoma City Bombing was a false flag; not withstanding it was 22yrs ago.)
So we're taking now, not last century.

So if all terrorist attacks occur surrounding Muslims, then that means that it's hereditary.
Take a medical condition for example, lets say Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis;
It affects mostly girls in families who have a genetic / hereditary predisposition to it. - Hereditary.
Terrorism affects mostly boys in families who have cultural predisposition to Islam right? - Hereditary.
So what's the difference exactly?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 28 September 2017 7:02:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The link between crime and genes is not science fiction.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212

A religion that glorifies violence would attract people with genetic predisposition to crime.

There may also be a related genetic link for a tendency to ideological fanaticism.

Just look at the sea of genetic defects at any Anti-Trump/Antifa protest.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 28 September 2017 8:17:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//(Oklahoma City Bombing was a false flag; not withstanding it was 22yrs ago.)//

And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!

//So we're taking now, not last century.//

Well that's a very narrow definition of the modern period. Problem is that now is constantly becoming then in accordance with the laws of physics. And also, now is not the same now for everybody simultaneously, also because of physics. Trying to define the modern era in terms of the present runs headlong into the problem of trying to define what the present is. And that's hard enough for physicists let alone historians.

So they decree that the early modern period started quite some time back in the late 1500's (yes, I know. What can you say? They're historians). I prefer the kick off date to be what historians consider the start of the 'contemporary period', 1945. It's a significant date for historians and scientists, because it was the year the first A-bomb was tested. After that, people went a bit nuts testing their bombs for a while. All the fallout we produced will show up in the data for any future radioactive dating measurement. It's a good milestone for the contemporary/'modern' period.

//So if all terrorist attacks occur surrounding Muslims, then that means that it's hereditary.//

Nope, because religion isn't hereditary.

//Take a medical condition for example, lets say Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis//

Sure, why not.

""Idiopathic", from the Latin, meaning we're idiots 'cause we can't figure out what's causing it."
- Dr. House

//It affects mostly girls in families who have a genetic / hereditary predisposition to it. - Hereditary.
Terrorism affects mostly boys in families who have cultural predisposition to Islam right? - Hereditary.
So what's the difference exactly?//

Well, the answer is in the question, isn't it? Culture isn't hereditary.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 28 September 2017 8:31:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Culture isn't hereditary...
Tell that to families / victims of honour killings.
- Or don't their deaths count for anything; in this particular argument?
Do you know many Aussie families that practice that Toni?
You see where I'm going?

Look technically your right ok.
But what I'm saying isn't too far off the mark.
Sorry I shouldn't have been so hard on you, but you'll get me back I'm sure.

""Idiopathic", from the Latin, meaning we're idiots 'cause we can't figure out what's causing it."
- Dr. House

Pretty harsh when the doctors name the condition 'It's got us baffled', though the fact they know there is a genetic aspect shows they actually know something about the cause, but I digress...

I have to honest; just about all the terrorist incidents we see nowadays are in some way linked to Islam.
Normal non-Muslim western people are far less likely to engage in the type of acts Muslims do, so in some ways if your are born Muslim, the chances of being a terrorist is much much higher.

And just like the previously mentioned medical condition you aren't necessarily going to get it, but the chance are much higher that you will.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 28 September 2017 9:29:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Philip S.

.

Many thanks for your response.

As regards my comment that « we were all “subjects” in 1901 », I noticed that this was indicated on my passport in 1965 when I first travelled to Europe. I found the following explanation on the federal government web site :

« At Federation in 1901, ‘British subject’ was the sole civic status noted in the Australian Constitution … Throughout the 1960s, Australian citizens were still required to declare their nationality as British. The term ‘Australian nationality’ had no official recognition or meaning until the Act was amended in 1969 and renamed the Citizenship Act. This followed a growing sense of Australian nationalism and the declining importance for Australians of the British Empire. In 1973 the Act was renamed the Australian Citizenship Act. It was not until 1984 that Australian citizens ceased to be British subjects ».

Here is the link :

http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs187.aspx

Since 1984, you and I and all other Australians are no longer British subjects. My current passport indicates that I am an Australian citizen.
.

You ask :

« When a person has dual citizenship, who determines which one the child goes to? »

I presume you mean « to which country does the child go to? ».

I think the answer is that the child has the right to go to whichever country he or she chooses, or whichever country his mother or father (or both) choose to send him/her to.

However, as a number of countries are now passing legislation similar to the new Australian legislation whereby “terrorists” may be stripped of their citizenship provided this does not leave them stateless, it becomes a question of “first in, first served”. In other words, if a “terrorist” has Italian/Australian dual citizenship, and Italy strips him/her of his/her Italian citizenship first, then Australia can no longer strip him/her of his/her Australian citizenship.

In this case, Italy was “first in” and therefore “first served”. Australia is left “holding the bag”, as it were.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 29 September 2017 12:00:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy