[Report] - Burqa Ban Threadjacking

[Galloism]

]A&B has been attempting to threadjack this for several pages now.

In reverse order:

Israel is in no legal obligation with NATO.

If we don't protect Israel, they are liable to be overrun by their neighbors. Israel has done a good job taking care of itself before, but it always faces threat of enemy invasion.

ISIS is almost on the Turkish-Syrian border but they haven't ventured into Turkey.

ISIS has threatened to conquer not only Israel, but also Rome. Give them time, left unchecked, and they will do just that.

You are ignorant of Europe, the EU, and European history.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say.

We need to restore Europe to its Crusade-era boundaries, adding in a few restored kingdoms, like King Cnut's kingdom, as well as the Holy Roman Empire at its extent. Then there's Constantine's domain, minus a separate Byzantine Empire, a Frankish Kingdom ruled by Charlemagne's ancestors (which probably no longer even exist), and so on. Minus a corrupt Catholic Church, adding in a Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox church headquartered not in Rome, but in Jerusalem and Constantinople.

These Christian countries could make a very peaceful Europe, and be strong against invasions from ISIS.

If the nations of Europe only returned to their Christian roots...they could unite to restore the gospel that is being subverted by the tyrannical European Union, and the looming threat of ISIS.

There's some other stuff that's older and more marginal, but I'm giving you the worst examples.

[Galloism]

Now about whether it should be legal to make threats, him and Confederacy of Nationalism.

You don't. The purpose of the legal system is to punish criminals, not prevent crime.

I don't understand. The police system prevents crime all the time through investigations and all that. Laws prevent crime in many cases by making people think twice about doing something wrong.

One example - if someone makes a threat on the Facebook against the president, why shouldn't they be held accountable? If threats are made legal, will people be able to live in security, even if they get hundreds of phone calls threatening to harm them?

What good reason? It should be illegal to carry out threats, not to make them.

But, if it is legal to make threats, everyone will be making them. What about our President or government? People will be making threats constantly, and they will never know what is a real threat and what is just a bored teenager on the Facebook.

That came out of a comparison of a Swastika ban compared with a Burqa ban that drifted off. Once it had already drifted, A&B jumped in to continue it.

EDIT:

And an admission of guilt:

Not the frigging topic of the thread.

I'm aware, thanks, but I really couldn't be bothered to care.

Second Edit: This one missed the eggbeater

If the nations of Europe only returned to their Christian roots...they could unite to restore the gospel that is being subverted by the tyrannical European Union, and the looming threat of ISIS.

No quote, no response, just a statement that... is not related. In any way. At all.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

If someone brings up a topic, I will make a response. My responses are completely reasonable and violate no rules. The topic has been constrained to the subject of radical Islam, burqas, and ISIS, which honestly are all very similar. The natural process of conversation will allow for reasonable deviations for the original point to reinforce everyone's thought process.

Respectfully, I see this more as an accusation towards me due to political disagreement. If you think a discussion about ISIS in reference to banning burqas/radical Islam is unreasonable and 'threadjacking', perhaps you should take a look at the root of the threadjack's course in the conversation. Honestly, this is an obsession about discussing that thing only, and allows no minor deviation to bring up other points.

By the way, of course my worldviews are controversial, but I feel a moral obligation to reply with a rebuttal if someone says that Christ isn't the son of God, etc, regardless of the topic.

I enjoy the NationStates forums but there is no denying that hostility is rampant. I hope that this can continue undisturbed. If anything, we should be reporting trolls, flames, and ad homs, not people with controversial opinions (which are by all means allowed on this website, last time I checked).

Are you quite sure that this is your opinion, Galloism, that I am hijacking the topic? Please take a look at the conversation history, and read this again, and see if I'm not justified.

A&B

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

By the way, if my comments are indeed threadjacking as you say, than certainly this counts as well?

Not really. He argues the same thing, over and over. Patterns. Once you've seen one of his arguments, you've seen them all. As such, you ignore.

He only has one argument and source: The Holy Bible.

[All Natural France]

Here, more proof following up on admission of guilt:

So you're purposefully threadjacking. Got it.

I am engaging in a very interesting conversation, right now it's more important to me than the original topic.

[Ifreann]

In the same thread:

Not the frigging topic of the thread.

I'm aware, thanks, but I really couldn't be bothered to care.

[Galloism]

If someone brings up a topic, I will make a response. My responses are completely reasonable and violate no rules. The topic has been constrained to the subject of radical Islam, burqas, and ISIS, which honestly are all very similar. The natural process of conversation will allow for reasonable deviations for the original point to reinforce everyone's thought process.

Respectfully, I see this more as an accusation towards me due to political disagreement. If you think a discussion about ISIS in reference to banning burqas/radical Islam is unreasonable and 'threadjacking', perhaps you should take a look at the root of the threadjack's course in the conversation. Honestly, this is an obsession about discussing that thing only, and allows no minor deviation to bring up other points.

By the way, of course my worldviews are controversial, but I feel a moral obligation to reply with a rebuttal if someone says that Christ isn't the son of God, etc, regardless of the topic.

I enjoy the NationStates forums but there is no denying that hostility is rampant. I hope that this can continue undisturbed. If anything, we should be reporting trolls, flames, and ad homs, not people with controversial opinions (which are by all means allowed on this website, last time I checked).

Are you quite sure that this is your opinion, Galloism, that I am hijacking the topic? Please take a look at the conversation history, and read this again, and see if I'm not justified.

A&B

I followed it as it was being written. There is no reasonable link between the Burqa ban in France and ISIS invading Rome and being rebuffed by a reborn holy roman empire led by Charlemagne the 87th.

Your answers were not reasonable. They were not on topic. Not even close.

That's why I brought it here.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Here's another example of my argument in context with the discussion on the thread.

Why do they have to do it in my nation? Why can't they have their burqas, Sharia law, and mosques in a nominally Islamic country instead? Why America? Why Europe? I see it as a sort of 'population jihad', if you will. They move into countries, increase in numbers, and work their way up, eventually creating an Islamic jihadist state. That is what France is headed towards now. That is what Europe as a whole, and Britain, is headed towards now. Total Islamic rule.

It's not a good thing. It's a sign that we've let down on our Christian morality, and that Christendom is losing authority in Europe. The secular vacuum created by the EU's totalitarianism will allow Islam to sweep in and seize control. I suspect that will happen within the next fifty years.

I don't want whatever drugs you're on.

Too much paranoia and an inability to descern hallucinations from reality.

And take note of the response (emphasis mine).

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Your answers were not reasonable. They were not on topic. Not even close.

That's why I brought it here.

They weren't reasonable in your opinion because my worldviews are controversial and certainly go against the mainstream. I am a free-thinker, and I'm willing to challenge most anything, except for God's word and, of course, the rules on this website.

[Galloism]

Your answers were not reasonable. They were not on topic. Not even close.

That's why I brought it here.

They weren't reasonable in your opinion because my worldviews are controversial and certainly go against the mainstream. I am a free-thinker, and I'm willing to challenge most anything, except for God's word and, of course, the rules on this website.

And here we are - I'm reporting your failure to follow the rules on this website, not your views.


Now, when I use the term "reasonable", I am of course referring to "reasonably related to the topic at hand", because the topic of this thread is about your (and a couple others) failure to stay on topic. Your snipping of my accurate summary notwithstanding, my report stands as it is.

I am finished with you in this vein. I have made my report.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

I agree. You've made your claims, and I've made a defense, we'll leave it to the mods to decide.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Why not file out an actual report instead of spamming the forums? You know you can contact the moderators directly, right?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Archeuland and Baughistan: *** 7 day ban *** for continued, and repeated threadjacking. Other warnings and bans appear to have gone right over your head. If this sort of thing continues, run the risk of being blocked from the site entirely.

Do not post on the forums with any puppets/alternate nations. This and any you do so with will be deleted. If a concerted effort is made to get around the ban, all nations will be deleted. Hopefully this is crystal clear. Thanks.