Shamima Begum

[koti]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

yes, be the better man.

 

Yes, be the better man and take care of her. And remember to be content with yourself  

[MigL]

I don't know whether I gave Dimreepr the +1 or J Jefferies.
( or neither messenger, but the message )

I have never argued against the rule of law.
That's what separates us from the ISIS a*sholes.

Edited February 26, 2019 by MigL

[koti]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't know whether I gave Dimreepr the +1 or J Jefferies.
( or neither messenger, but the message )

I have never argued against the rule of law.
That's what separates us from the ISIS a*sholes.

Jim Jefferies is hilarious and hes a genius at crossing the line while keeping integrity.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, koti said:

Yes, be the better man and take care of her. And remember to be content with yourself  

[Raider5678]

On 2/26/2019 at 6:19 AM, dimreepr said:

the bottom line is. She deserves her human rights.

She doesn't think the almost 3,000 who died in 9/11 deserve theirs.

 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

She doesn't think the almost 3,000 who died in 9/11 deserve theirs.

 

Irrelevant

You’re no better than those you despise if you too are willing to abandon common decency and equal protections. 

[Raider5678]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

You’re no better than those you despise if you too are willing to abandon common decency and equal protections. 

I never said that's what I wanted.

 

Dimreeper is in the habit of saying some random statement that ultimately means nothing. I was replying in turn. If you're gonna call me out for it being irrelevant, then call him out on it too.

[John Cuthber]

18 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

She doesn't think the almost 3,000 who died in 9/11 deserve theirs.

 

And, to a rough approximation, that's how we know she is bad.

 

[dimreepr]

On 2/28/2019 at 8:58 PM, Raider5678 said:

Dimreeper is in the habit of saying some random statement that ultimately means nothing. I was replying in turn. If you're gonna call me out for it being irrelevant, then call him out on it too.

1

An innocent child is dead, does that mean nothing?

[iNow]

On 2/28/2019 at 2:58 PM, Raider5678 said:

Dimreeper is in the habit of saying some random statement that ultimately means nothing. I was replying in turn. If you're gonna call me out for it being irrelevant, then call him out on it too.

I must have missed this. I wasn’t calling you out for being irrelevant. Was this directed at me? If so, will you please clarify how what I said has made you feel that I’m treating you differently, as that most certainly was not my intent. 

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

An innocent child is dead, does that mean nothing?

I don’t think that’s fair. Raider was not saying deaths of children are irrelevant. He said many of your replies are.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I don’t think that’s fair. Raider was not saying deaths of children are irrelevant. He said many of your replies are.

He jumped on the bandwagon too discredit this

Quote

the bottom line is. She deserves her human rights.

I think it’s fair.

[MigL]

Maybe they should add the charge of negligence or child endangerment to the list of many charges against her.
If she had stayed in England, the National Health system would have looked after her baby and I'm sure it would have survived her stupidity.

When did society become responsible for people's stupidity ?
Is there no personal accountability anymore ?
 IOW, why does Dimreepr expect everyone to feel responsible because the mother was negligent ?
( compassion is one thing, but culpability and excusing the behavior are totally different )

But that's just the opinion of a foreigner.

[John Cuthber]

At least part of the responsibility lies with the home secretary who acted illegally.

The existence of things like consulates shows that states really are responsible for their citizens and, legally, the baby was a UK citizen with the right to access care under the NHS.

It wasn't Shamima who blocked that.

But the really silly idea is that her action several years before the child was born counts as endangering the child.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

I wasn’t calling you out for being irrelevant

Hmm. Actually, I did. Derp. Don’t mind me. Broader point was that her feelings and comments aren’t relevant to whether or not we stand up for human rights. 

We either offer the same protections to everyone... even those we dislike or disagree with... or we don’t apply them consistently and are no better than those we do easily call evil. Principles matter. 

Edited March 9, 2019 by iNow

[MigL]

I don't follow John...
"But the really silly idea is that her action several years before the child was born counts as endangering the child"

Actions have consequences.
Sometimes there is a delay in the consequences.

I might choose to, and am responsible for, getting drunk.
If I then drive, and hit a pedestrian several hours later, I am still responsible for having gotten previously drunk.

If I build an unsafe house, and several years later, it collapses and kills a child, am I not responsible for being negligent and endangering that child ? I am the one who would have endangered the child, not society.

The fact that her actions put her child in a disadvantaged situation is no reason to absolve her guilt by making society feel sorry for her, as Dimreepr seems to be suggesting.
( and if I have that wrong dimreepr, perhaps you can stop with the one-liners, and elaborate )

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

I might choose to, and am responsible for, getting drunk.
If I then drive, and hit a pedestrian several hours later, I am still responsible for having gotten previously drunk.

2

If a child is given the boose by an adult?

[MigL]

Totally different scenario, Dimreepr.

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

The fact that her actions put her child in a disadvantaged situation is no reason to absolve her guilt by making society feel sorry for her, as Dimreepr seems to be suggesting.

 

That seems dishonest, which of my posts suggests that?

[John Cuthber]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't follow John...
"But the really silly idea is that her action several years before the child was born counts as endangering the child"

Actions have consequences.
Sometimes there is a delay in the consequences.

I might choose to, and am responsible for, getting drunk.
If I then drive, and hit a pedestrian several hours later, I am still responsible for having gotten previously drunk.

If I build an unsafe house, and several years later, it collapses and kills a child, am I not responsible for being negligent and endangering that child ? I am the one who would have endangered the child, not society.

The fact that her actions put her child in a disadvantaged situation is no reason to absolve her guilt by making society feel sorry for her, as Dimreepr seems to be suggesting.
( and if I have that wrong dimreepr, perhaps you can stop with the one-liners, and elaborate )

For a start, she did what she did, knowing that the law would prevent her becoming stateless.

The child was entitled to care under the NHS.

She tried to make that happen.

If someone has children, and those children subsequently get killed by a drunk driver is it the parents' fault or the fault of the law breaker?

Should nobody in any war zone ever have children?
Should nobody ever have children because they may end up in a refugee camp?

 

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

and if I have that wrong dimreepr, perhaps you can stop with the one-liners, and elaborate

35 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

For a start, she did what she did, knowing that the law would prevent her becoming stateless.

The child was entitled to care under the NHS.

She tried to make that happen.

If someone has children, and those children subsequently get killed by a drunk driver is it the parents' fault or the fault of the law breaker?

Should nobody in any war zone ever have children?
Should nobody ever have children because they may end up in a refugee camp?

2

Is that elaborate enough? plus one John

 

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

For a start, she did what she did, knowing that the law would prevent her becoming stateless.

The child was entitled to care under the NHS.

She tried to make that happen.

If someone has children, and those children subsequently get killed by a drunk driver is it the parents' fault or the fault of the law breaker?

Should nobody in any war zone ever have children?
Should nobody ever have children because they may end up in a refugee camp?

They traveled there willingly, stealing from family to finance it.

I think that's the main issue in terms of trying to have sympathy. They placed themselves in this situation.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Endy0816

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

They traveled there willingly, stealing from family to finance it.

I think that's the main issue in terms of trying to have sympathy. They placed themselves in this situation.

 

as a child, ffs is it so difficult to understand?

[John Cuthber]

33 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

They traveled there willingly, stealing from family to finance it.

I think that's the main issue in terms of trying to have sympathy. They placed themselves in this situation.

Two issues.

1 kids do dumb things, but we don't hold it against them forever.
2 the position in which she finds herself (and which led to the death of the child)  is due to the Home Secretary not following the law.

[Samantha Priss]

I find it hard to support borders and laws when I see a crying brown child ten thousand miles away on my TV.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Samantha Priss said:

I find it hard to support borders and laws when I see a crying brown child ten thousand miles away on my TV.

rito...