View Topic

pan 1 - /pan/
verb
1. criticize severely.
2. wash gravel in a pan to separate out (gold).

I was criticising the actual religion. The religion that is itself extreme, which would naturally lead to extremism in some of its adherents. I never made reference to how many this might be. And then proceeded [edit: forgot the word "to" here] to point out that Christianity wasn't much better. Nor is Judaism, for that matter. You saw what you wanted to see and pounced on it.

This isn't about religion or punishment/rehabilitation. It's about the British exit from the European Union and the economic/political consequences thereof. This distraction has only barely touched on the closest thing religion could be related to here: immigration and the Syrian refugee crisis. I'd like for everyone to regain focus on the topic.

pan 1 - /pan/
verb
1. criticize severely.
2. wash gravel in a pan to separate out (gold).

I was criticising the actual religion. The religion that is itself extreme, which would naturally lead to extremism in some of its adherents. I never made reference to how many this might be. And then proceeded [edit: forgot the word "to" here] to point out that Christianity wasn't much better. Nor is Judaism, for that matter. You saw what you wanted to see and pounced on it.

pan1
pan/Submit
noun
1.
a container made of metal and used for cooking food in.
synonyms:   saucepan, skillet, frying pan, pot, wok
"a heavy pan"
2.
USinformal
a person's face.


And, and this!

It does apply as a reason for the vote to go the way it does, and even if you disagree with this particular reason, understanding of it is important, elsewise nothing is going to be learned. I certainly didn't start insulting people. I won't stand for it when I do get insulted.

That doesn't give an excuse to comment about extremism and the merits/downsides of religion itself, and it is starting to become incendiary.

I asked literally the same question many people who voted for this would want answered. Asking questions is "incendiary" now?

* Wintermoot is glad he didn't step between Laurentus and Weissreich.

Edit: Although I find it cute that someone was willing to

Let's just drop it and move on. My anger has been stoked, but it will subside.

I was just disappointed that it was the only kind of discussion that has resulted from this thread instead of anything new. I'm starting to feel a slight sense of regret if all I've done is create a vehicle to further a set of arguments.

(And Moot, oh my )

So thank you, for moving on and acting maturely to drop the subject.

It may have been a tangent, but one that I wouldn't be surprised that others went on when they debated the merits of leave vs remain. I think we've explored the mindset behind immigration, one of the main issues that determined how the vote went, and we've revealed that at least in this area the two sides are worlds apart in their mindset...and can be quite emotional in the defense of those mindsets.

*Fights back the urge to make a remark about the above remarks.*

*Loses*

I wasn't emotional until the very moment I was insulted. Then I became pissed and took the debate to its bitter end because I got caught up in defending my pride. I make no apology and won't expect any to be made in return.

*Disappears again, hopefully for good until the subject is changed*

*Laurentus also realises he's displaying his annoying habit of being argumentative when annoyed.*

EDIT: *And editing the shit out [of] any weird mistakes he made, because he can't stand making mistakes, which is also annoying, to none more so than himself, especially as he often doesn't realise he's made a mistake until much later*

EDIT 2: *Goddamn point made about editing*

That's not quite what I meant...I just meant that you and Weissreich can both be very aggressive in defending your opinions and stances, especially when it involves politics. It's like two bears fighting it out...and then cute little bunny Barnes bravely coming in and giving it his all trying to break it up.

I hope I didn't just insult everyone with that comparison. xD

Made me laugh quite heartily, actually.

Haha...good.

* Wintermoot sighs contentedly

I love you guys.

But in the doing so we should exclude those who want to come to our country (or countries) in search of a better future?

Yes, we should.

Why should we enable the richer, more educated people in undeveloped countries to selfishly exile themselves and leave everyone else in the dust?

Mass immigration is a net brain and manpower drain from undeveloped countries to ours and ensures these countries will stay undeveloped. It's not the nice thing to do.

You really want to be a humanitarian, then offer expertise and local funding. Not direct cash payments to corrupt governments, not food aid, not massive immigration quotas. The goal should be to build up the third world so it becomes just as prosperous as the first world, not to bring the third world in the first world.