To Belly

What would count as a balanced debate. The points I see that have merrit that could be considered ballenced are often rejected just on the point that they support the other side of the debate then the side those rejecting the points hold. Then on top of that even if the good points on both sides are not rejected, the often they are ignored to constrate on the points that have no merit and to fight against those points. Weak man and straw man fallacies to constrate on points of no value, instead of acknowledging points that have a strong stance.

For starters (of this balanced debate) here are two points that I would count as strong points in the debate of racism with regards to Muslims,

1). The actual harm done by the Muslim migrants, actually being acknowledged. These aren't small points to dismiss, but are a safety issue.

2). The value that several western countries have imbedded in them even from their beginnings (or at least strived to hold up to). That of a welcoming and hospitable country for anyone willing to immigrate to their home. I assume this was based on a Christian and Jewish teaching to be kind to the foreigners among you, and to treat fairly with them. As well as acknowledging the history of at least a few of the western nations foundations. That being that they were immigrants themselves. This also is a strong point I see worth not ignoring.

For your balanced debate, I would recommend you take the strong points given against the side of the debate you hold, as well as encourage others to do the same. Then (though it is hard to do) ignore the points that are only there to insult or shame another. Those are the weak points, that only sometimes have an underlying strong point behind them.

Belly,

That's another post!!

"Above everything else my question is how can ANYONE not see this thread is so wrong it is dreadful"

Easily, by using their brain.

Borders, language, culture. That's what it is all about. There really should be no issue about border protection. You either have a nation state or you don’t.

No immigrants of any kind have a right to try altering the country that has (often foolishly) taken them in. The lunatic policy of multiculturalism, introduced by the silly host countries themselves, has encouraged some immigrants to believe that it is OK.

As for Belly talking about 'balance’ - he thinks balance means agreeing with him. That's why he keeps 'coming back’ - even after he says he will not; he seems to think that, if he is persistent enough, others will come around to his way of thinking. It's obvious that he is not very bright, and he is entirely incapable of seeing what a goose he makes of himself, particularly with his 'not returning to this thread’ nonsense, then posting again a short while later. He once reached the stage that he claims to have been ‘driven out’ by some 'nasty’ poster. He still talks about it! At one stage, the Far Left suggested that I was that poster. No. I hadn't even heard of the bloke before he turned up again, talking about his 'victim’ status (typical state for losers). I just wish that the poster who he said pushed him out would return and do us a favour.

ttbn,
>No immigrants of any kind have a right to try altering the country that has (often foolishly) taken them in.
Yes they do. It's the right of free speech.

Paul Golding has been in three different prisons for speaking about Islam. While in prison viciously by an Islamist gang, sustaining serious injuries. He has been prosecuted seven times. He has been arrested fifteen times. He has been dragged into the High Court three times. He’s had death threat warnings from the police over Islamist terror groups. He is currently subject to two separate lots of bail conditions, a probation supervision order and a High Court injunction. Paul has been mercilessly persecuted by the authorities and our movement has been silenced by social media, but never gives up his fight to save our country!
Despite these horrific persecutions, attacks Paul has built one of the biggest and most successful patriot movements in British history, with almost 3 million followers worldwide. He has stood for Mayor of London and secured over 105,000 votes and been a local councillor.
In four weeks, he will again be in the dock facing prison for making a speech in Belfast in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena terror attack. His speech didn’t make any violent or inflammatory statements about Islam. He simply told the truth, that the West has a problem with Islamist terrorism! All four speakers at the rally were rounded up and prosecuted for criticising Islam. You see, under Sharia Law all criticism of Islam is banned - it is called 'Blasphemy'.
Muslim organisations, such as the 'Muslim Council of Britain', have long lobbied the UK government to ban criticism of Islam. In many Islamic countries - such as Pakistan criticism of Islam carries the death penalty. British spineless politicians - at the behest of powerful Islamic organisations are slowly introducing Muslim blasphemy laws into Britain. Therefore patriot leaders are ruthlessly persecuted in Britain for criticising Islam and the extremism within its communities.
Paul condemned terrorism at a time when they were removing the remains of murdered British children from the walls of Manchester Arena after an Islamist nail bomb attack. We don't want to live in a country where British citizens are imprisoned for criticising a religion?

Edited from a British Patriot.

Islam and Democracy cannot exist together; like to dispute that statement, Belly?