- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Islamaphobia, or anti-muslim sentiment is extremely prominant, and extremely accepted in society.
Which society? What constitutes as "extremely accepted"? Most people whom I've seen display anti-Islamic sentiment are labeled as "racist", or "Islamophobic".
Even though terrorist groups and actions have been done by isolated people, the country has united against the billion+ people who are members of the religon.
To start off, while terrorists themselves are a tiny minority, many Muslims worldwide aren't exactly hippy dippy lovelies themselves: https://www.youtube.com/
So much so, that the republican party fought to show Obama as a Muslim, as if that discredited him as a presidential canidate.
No. Certain Republicans/right-wingers accused Obama of being a Muslim. I don't recall the Republican Part officially espousing this belief at any point in time (although I wouldn't be surprised if they were involved in the birther controversy.)
What can/should be done about this, or anything?
Learn to differentiate between blind paranoia and criticism of a religion, for one. Dismissing it all as "Islamophobia" (like oh so many do) doesn't help in the slightest.
Or what is your opinion on Islamaphobia in general?
I don't know. What are we considering "Islamophobia" here?
Some argue that islamaphobia is the most accepted form of discrimination in the United States. Do you agree?
Not in the mainstream media. Dunno about elsewhere, you'll have to be more specific.
I remember a long time ago there was an advert claiming an easy one size fits all get rich quick scheme and all people had to do was post a $5 note with a stamped addressed return envelope to a certain address for the details.
It was reported that apparently everyone got the response, quite simple really. The response said "Get a job"
If getting rich quick or easy etc etc was real and not just luck, risk or chance, we would all be doing it and there would not be any low socio economic or poor people. If we want economic security, then the harder we work the luckier we get.
If the cost either way is neutral then it would be irrational to vote against it.
In any trial project lessons are learnt and if the project is successful and can be replicated it may prove to become less costly per person once the infrastructure is in place. The end result being more are kept out of detention for less cost than detention. Win Win
Is it okay to temprorarily ban someone and unban them later?
And to help figure out the answer to that question, I asked why you would ban someone temporarily vs. permaban. If someone has done something that merits banning, why would you undo it? And if someone has done something that's not bad enough for a permaban, why would you ban them at all? What is an example of these situations?
(I've noticed that when I put more than one point into an argument, you respond to 0-1 of them, so i'm going to start trying to only make one argument a post. Hope that makes it easier for you to stay focused...)
That doesn't answer the question "why," which is what I asked. What did I do that merited being banned. Also, you never answered my original question (which is the topic of this debate) which is why would you ban someone temporary? Like, what is a circumstance where someone is temporarily banned vs permabanned?
Ok, why did you ban me when I sent you this message in a debate a few days ago:
"No. He won't. Because it's not his job. As he explained to you, the topic you raised is not appropriate for this site. If you want to know about this, do research yourself. It is not the job of people on this site to answer your every question that can be found out through less than 2 minutes on Google."
How is that abusive? Also, in your "Arresting officers in the Freddie Grey killing are expected to be charged" you banned, me, and I never called you names or anything of the sort. Why was I banned from that?
I didn't say that you didn't have the right to respond to abuse. I just said that it you didn't HAVE to respond. Of course you can, but you don't need to block someone to stop the abuse. Simply stop responding.
Also, you have continuously blocked people who are not being abusive to you. You have definitely started to abuse the ban function, by banning anyone who says anything that you don't like to hear.
In a debate, people are going to say things that you disagree with. That's why it's a debate. The idea is that you then respond to it, and a discussion happens. By banning everyone who says something you don't like, you are stopping the discussion. it's within your right, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Why? I think the reasons for banning would be if they are being abusive, hurtful, or spamming. If they have done any of those things, then ban them. If they are simply irritating you, or have sent you something you don't want to respond to right away, simply don't respond for however long you want. There is no obligation to respond to anyone immediately.
But seriously, what is the benefit of a temporary ban vs a permanent ban? Like, what would the circumstances be for each? Just curious.