America considers all Pakistanis to be potential terrorists

Somebody hand me a playbook. I can't tell if you guys are being funny stupid or stupid stupid.

Personally, I must be stupid-stupid, 'cause there wasn't supposed to be anything funny about what I said.

I'll concede your point on not answering a lot of your points, but did apologize for that earlier.

To be honest, I've been refreshing this page while juggling two novels and an essay today, so you really didn't have my full attention, it's true, I've actually paid more attention to semi-jovial internet arguing than a real in depth discussion in the later stages of this thread. But hey, it's better than TV.

That said, I genuinely can't see why you're contradicting me at every turn, because you've not really got a hugely meaningful point to make against anything I've said, as far as I can see. I think the only real discordance we have is over the 'travel with consequence' issue. And the fact that you're getting a bit excited.

Seriously, given that quote I took from you last time... just what is the point you're trying to make that's got you so het up? Paint me a stupid, or unable to communicate if you want, it is the internet after all, I can deal with it. You know, say I am a moron, just re-iterate it for me.

Try to keep the sentences short.

I was trying to be funny, but I think it might've just ended up as stupid.

Can I just say, I haven't had this much fun in one of these threads for AGES.

You said you wanted to have a "real discussion" on the topic. I tried to set up a premise from which that discussion could grow and you essentially responded with "NA AH, that's not what's happening, etc..." at every step of the way. In addition to that, you focus way to much on single sentences rather than the overall "strokes" that I'm trying to paint for you.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I'm not contradicting you. That's all in your head. Essentially, I got the feeling you weren't even responding to the issues I was trying to raise, so there's no way my response to your response would ever be a contradiction. I wanted to start with the premise that nations have the right to restrict travel based on national security concerns, and you're response was "that's not going on here". That's what I meant in one of my posts when I asked you to stop jumping the gun. You weren't even responding to the issues I was raising, either that or you were confusing or conflating them. I couldn't really tell.

I've already stated I disagree with the policy as it stands. All I was trying to do was to get you to see how maybe the concerns that lead to the policy are not necessarily driven by bigotry, amongst other things.

And no offense, if you want to read a book, read a book, if you want/need to write an essay do it, but don't try to engage me if you're only going to respond with half ass and insincere (as far as truly engaging in the discussion) remarks and then later go, well, I was only kinda paying attention. It's a waste of my time. You're not a child, and I'm not going to spoon feed this to you. Either try to make an effort or well, just don't talk to me.

Right, so if you said, "I don't think that this policy was motivated purely out of bigotry' I probably would've said possibly not, but I think it is a factor and you wouldn't be having you change your pants right now.

You're way too haughty. Even for me.

Oh yeah and sorry Mr Jose Arrogantio, but I had other things to do today. As you said, this thread has long been a dead horse as far as real discussion goes. You wasted your own time with your need to have the last word. I was really just along for the ride.

And oh god yeah, if your style of debate was a little bit more down to earth it might've taken a few less than 5 or 6 pages to get here.

I've also made a few attempts to include some civil overtures in my posts. So quit talking down to me like some kind of pompous bitch.

The funny thing is, if I did say that. I can guarantee you that you would have said something along the lines of. "Yeah, well that's not the point." If you're "just along for the ride," in the future please let me know and I won't waste my time with you, and don't presume to know the state of my undergarments. OK? I just thought for a moment you might actually really want to engage in a conversation, my bad.

Moreover, if your idea of debating is "talking down to earth," please leave me out of it, because ultimately that comes down to nothing more than sharing opinions, and we all know about opinions. Perhaps you can't engage more than superficially, I don't know. In the end, that's your problem not mine.

And for the record, my attempts to converse with you, and actually give you the benefit of the doubt that you may on some level be able to follow along was in fact me being civil. But this has been great, I'll make a mental note never to take anything you say seriously again.

Once more with gusto...

Good riddance,

and thanks

for all the fish.

G'day sir.

Wow. That's some really impressive melodrama. I torn between getting self-conscious about continuing this ridiculous exchange and being intrigued and entertained by your footstomping and pathological need for the last word. I do actually have a couple of things to say - I'm not sure if they fall under emotedcreations "Haughty Pompous Debate Club Protocol' but I hope that you can bear to come down to the level of someone who doesn't know special debate posh speak just for a bit.

You can guarantee what I would have said? Wow, I knew you were, like, much cleverer than me and better at debating and stuff, but you knew that I would say that? Do you really need anyone else to participate when you're communicating with someone or do you just know everything already? I guess that's why you threw a wobbler when you couldn't lead the debate in a very specific direction and didn't get the exact answers you were after, huh?
And yes, indeed I was along for the ride. Which is what you wanted. More on that later if you can follow the conversation, dumbo - Annoying isn't it?

OH and I forgot to add. Most of the points I ignored were weak and you misunderstood the intent of a lot of my posts too. I think we're past the point where we can have a peeropper debate() but maybe I'll just clarify a quick couple of things:

1. My reply to India wasn't to imply that most Americans are racist. You jumped the gun. I was actually trying to say that it's a shame that people are talking about not wanting to visit America, because all of the Americans I have known (or lived with) have been warm, friendly, accepting people. It's a shame that this negative reputation is still spreading, because they don't deserve it.

2. This is a perfect example of I what I don't like about you:

What on earth are you talking about? Seriously, turn the pretentious down a notch. Honestly. If your idea of debating is being a relentlessly condescending blowhard, you're probably not as smart as you're trying to make people think and nobody will ever want to listen to you. Which will make you throw amusing tantrums.

Wow, how noble of you! Is it hard to type with you head so far up there?


And yes, you've actually somehow blurted out something worthwhile there.
Instead of being straight and making your point, you wanted me to follow along with your half-baked idea of how the debate should go. You wanted to be Mr Chairperson so that you could feel really smart over the internet.
Every time you didn't get the specific kind of answer you wanted to move onto the next part of how you thought the debate should go you reacted like a teenager: "Oh you're so stupid THIS is how one has a proper debate." - You're the one with the problem exchanging ideas. You turned the debate into a petty argument. And I'm still just along for the ride.

We agreed, but you wanted to assure yourself that you were the smart guy. You reek of it, your posts are dripping with it - 'I'M CLEVER! I KNOW HOW TO HAVE A PROPER DEBATE FOLLOW MY LEAD! WRONG ANSWER, GOD!". You wanted me to say - "Wow, you are smart, I'm glad I followed your step by step set of questions, that's thrown a whole new light on things."

It didn't happen and now look at you. Toys everywhere. And posting pictures of cats.

Zarth? Maybe you can try to end this thread on a one liner that will please both parties?

Sorry - edit time expired.

(Ok you start of with some unnecessary rudeness.) This 'worst case scenario' is a perfectly legitimate illustration of how examining people based upon their race or travel history casts unfair suspicion on/ punishes innocent people. It's perfectly plausible that someone, through ignorance or error could arrive somewhere with the wrong visa. It happens every day.

That's naive thinking. My family are gone for months at a time when visiting other family abroad. And being away for 4-6 months is perfectly ordinary for young people. It's simply not a workable formula.

Well, yes that might be considered a little more to go on that being Asian or having been traveling. Well done. But that's where we talk about effective intelligence and pro-activity taking the place of sweeping, cumbersome reforms that terrorist organizations easily sidestep and innocent people fall afoul of.

I was trying to discuss-with-you a policy that would take into consideration national security interests as well as ethnic considerations--equality of rights if you will. I never got to make an argument, or even really started to discuss it meaningfully with you, because for whatever reason you wouldn't engage, which is why I overreacted so energetically.

When I said things like "this might be" or "consider this" it requires you to respond with well, I don't think that would work for X, Y, Z reasons. You just shot everything down without providing insight, just a "that won't work" (thus my claim that you tried to find the worse case scenario in everything). You didn't say what you thought would be meaningful policy, until just now (and I don't know what that's about--a last minute attempt to sound reasonable). Honestly, that makes you look a little arrogant--you knew all along how dumb my ideas were but didn't need to tell me why? Which is ultimately ironic because they weren't concrete suggestions anyway. Why did you wait till now to respond out of context? Do you maybe see how that'd be a little frustrating to someone who is trying to have a conversation with you?

Moreover, I wasn't necessarily arguing that is how is should be. I was trying to have a conversation with you. I was in no way trying to suggest that I had all the answers, I was trying to structure a conversation in which we might come to some answers, but you didn't engage (ah, I really don't know how else to put it). That's why you were frustrating the hell out of me. I'm sure you're a smart guy. And yes, I was being condescending, because I couldn't figure out why you didn't want to have a rational discussion. You seemed to indicate that in the beginning of the thread, so I "took the bait" apparently. Look, I don't hold anything against you I promise. And I've become overly redundant at this point, so I'm just going to shut-up.

Oh, and if it wasn't clear, that was supposed to be an apology.

None of whom would have been affected by the proposed visa-waiver exclusion.

Requiring entry visas for people who have visited a suspect region (rather than merely having roots there) might sound like a better idea. But how would you know to require them? Three of your four examples were even American citizens, and thus exempt from any requirement for entry visas.

Fair enough, I can see where you're coming from there. I was dismissive.

I did give general retorts that I thought should've been enough for you to advance your point upon and apologize for not providing a more thorough breakdown of your argument. To be honest, since we seemed to agree largely I did kinda think that the flaws in those proposals we're implicit, I was just waiting for you to follow through to what you seemed to be leading up to, but you seemed to just get more and more annoyed. Which in turn means that I would get annoyed and react by annoying you.

If I were the smart guy I would have left this thread ago a long time ago, finished reading and writing for the next few days and I'd be in the pub.

Fair enough, I concede that I could have been more helpful, especially for a thread-starter. At the exact time that I realized that debate wasn't on the cards, I started to get irked by your tone. I guess the rest, as they say, is history.

Anyway no worries, lets not get too serious, I offer an apology back, we both helped each other get stupid. *claps you on back*

... aaaww.

Golly. Current Events has gone soft.

Well, I'm smiling.

This just seems to be a perfect way to make people even more paranoid than they already are, or is it just me? what next stopping people with beards?

Dude, what's with all of this resurrecting old threads of mine? Are you people searching 'Glassmachine Talks about Asian people' or what?

how much did you pay him ?

sinking ship!

Apparently, far too much.