Original post by ivybridgeI don't see how this at all proves anything I have said wrong? In fact, you are rather agreeing with me. As such, I don't quite understand the first sentence.
a). And he can't. They will go through Greece, through other countries, or will live in Camps because they can't go any further, as has happened in Calais. This is because once there, what can the countries do with them? Accommodate or leave them and if they leave them, they have a human rights issue on their hands that nobody wants to be smeared with.
b). You are manipulating what I said here to suit your own argument. I made that comment in relation to what was being discussed. Do not use gay marriage - I might be gay but these issues are not of interest to me. Banging on about gay marriage or gay rights won't help your debate. The gay marriage comment anyway, is not relevant for the reason given in my second sentence. It is out of context entirely. Islam is not resistant to change, particular Islamic countries are. Change comes everywhere eventually. Many muslims do not conform to the rules laid down in Islamic countries; my best friend and his family are devout muslims yet have been the most accepting of my sexuality out of everybody I have met to date apart from another friend and her family but then her father is a labour politician so it was expected. Anyway, digressions. You are moving away from the actualities of the debate, again, to suit your own point of view. You are talking about Islam in general, not muslims. Islamic countries may appear resistant, it does not mean your average muslim is. I haven't met a single muslim I've had an issue with or who seems to be backward, in my 18 years on this planet. I think you're being totally warped by fear and media coverage of events. It's not that you're ignoring reality or even disagreeing with it, it's that you don't know what it actually is. As you have mentioned, you are talking about the Islamic ideology, which is not wholly relevant because it is the muslims that we are dealing with, not the Islamic concept. Again, the final point is just not relevant. We have huge muslim populations who don't act in such a backward way. In my opinion, it's about the chance being given. Everything you're saying is true in itself but at the end of the day, this issue has been covered by things I have already said. If they do not integrate or conduct themselves in distasteful ways, they will be dealt with in accordance with Western values and laws. That's all there is to it. Your concern is irrational.
c). This is why countries are taking specific numbers. I don't think they are each actually taking in more than they can handle. The United Kingdom, for example, has only pledged to take in only 20,000. The comment about smaller numbers is not relevant either because you don't get to decide the numbers this issue has an impact on and this carries us over onto the next comment - if you believe its our moral duty, why does that change when numbers increase? We won't take more than we can handle. This is why borders are closing throughout Europe and England and other off-shore countries are only taking specific numbers and there is a long and drawn-out process to admit those individuals to the countries in question.
I disagree. Political Correctness is not as bad as people make it out to be. It's just like the free speech debate - people do not understand what constitutes free speech and cannot demarcate between what is going beyond the boundaries of free speech and what is not, what becomes hate and what is okay.