|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 20 2016 02:02 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:52 KwarK wrote:
While I'm going to become a US citizen for purposes of convenience I doubt I will ever feel a primary loyalty to the United States over my homeland, nor have any great reverence for the constitution. Would I be allowed to stay? Sure. I don't think you are any different from other immigrants. We don't need people to worship the constitution as some sacred document. Even the founding fathers knew it had flaws, which is why they build it a system to amend it. We can't outright disregard the constitution.I think some of it can be changed but that process should be voted on, not decided by one particular group. The vote should count only if more than 60% of the people have voted to change. Without 60%, it just shows that people really care about it that much to change it.
I did not recommend to do that.
|
On September 20 2016 01:55 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 01:49 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 01:46 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 20 2016 01:44 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 01:07 Rebs wrote:On September 20 2016 00:56 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 00:52 Rebs wrote:On September 20 2016 00:46 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 00:41 Plansix wrote:That is not a good sign in my book considering that I have about the same Chance to be killed by Lightning as Islamic terrorism. But we are now heading towards the talked over discussion of “Muslims, can they live among us in peace?” Yes and no. It depends on How much of their book do they follow. And you can't rule out people's NaTuRal instinct of survival. If one group of people have statistically higher Chance of causing harm toward others, then you can't blame others for expressing their distrust toward that group of people since we do live in a western society where Freedom of expression is allowed. Again with the book shit, the cluelessness is real, its also why you will never solve this problem. Statistically speaking American Muslims have a lower Chance of causing harm to the average american than cops and whacko White dudes. Cops have plenty of distrust granted, but no one seems to have a problem with White dudes. There won't be any problems as long as the border Control have a strict set of standard to abide by. What is your idea of a strict standard? They have to be capable of two marketable skills that does not include harming any other people or have any previous criminal records. The marketable skills may not be like a Great artists or a Great technician but they do need to be at a decent level. Something to demonstrate those skills like a piece of software, an artpiece, blueprint, projects done, etc. Their immediate family members can enter too assuming that they do not have any previous criminal records. Have to agree on the constitution. Probably will ask them what type of Muslism are they. Are they interested in becoming a citizen? If no, they need to get out as soon as their country of origin is deemed safe. If yes, then the government need to figure out a Way to put them in a reasonable environment. Its not hard to make them fill up a form or two. you do realize there's a very extensive vetting process for getting into the US, right? Hey he asked ME to express my "idea of a strict standard". Ok, and you do realize your "strict standard" is probably less strict than the process we have in place now? Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 01:52 KwarK wrote:
While I'm going to become a US citizen for purposes of convenience I doubt I will ever feel a primary loyalty to the United States over my homeland, nor have any great reverence for the constitution. Would I be allowed to stay? Dunno. As for me, I like this country and all, but I just happened to be born here. Hooray for birthright citizenship I guess.
Then good, let's stay that way I guess.
|
On September 20 2016 02:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 02:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:52 KwarK wrote:
While I'm going to become a US citizen for purposes of convenience I doubt I will ever feel a primary loyalty to the United States over my homeland, nor have any great reverence for the constitution. Would I be allowed to stay? Sure. I don't think you are any different from other immigrants. We don't need people to worship the constitution as some sacred document. Even the founding fathers knew it had flaws, which is why they build it a system to amend it. We can't outright disregard the constitution.I think some of it can be changed but that process should be voted on, not decided by one particular group. The vote should count only if more than 60% of the people have voted to change. Without 60%, it just shows that people really care about it that much to change it. I did not recommend to do that.
Cool.
|
On September 20 2016 02:08 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 01:55 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 20 2016 01:49 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 01:46 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 20 2016 01:44 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 01:07 Rebs wrote:On September 20 2016 00:56 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 00:52 Rebs wrote:On September 20 2016 00:46 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 00:41 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That is not a good sign in my book considering that I have about the same Chance to be killed by Lightning as Islamic terrorism. But we are now heading towards the talked over discussion of “Muslims, can they live among us in peace?” Yes and no. It depends on How much of their book do they follow. And you can't rule out people's NaTuRal instinct of survival. If one group of people have statistically higher Chance of causing harm toward others, then you can't blame others for expressing their distrust toward that group of people since we do live in a western society where Freedom of expression is allowed. Again with the book shit, the cluelessness is real, its also why you will never solve this problem. Statistically speaking American Muslims have a lower Chance of causing harm to the average american than cops and whacko White dudes. Cops have plenty of distrust granted, but no one seems to have a problem with White dudes. There won't be any problems as long as the border Control have a strict set of standard to abide by. What is your idea of a strict standard? They have to be capable of two marketable skills that does not include harming any other people or have any previous criminal records. The marketable skills may not be like a Great artists or a Great technician but they do need to be at a decent level. Something to demonstrate those skills like a piece of software, an artpiece, blueprint, projects done, etc. Their immediate family members can enter too assuming that they do not have any previous criminal records. Have to agree on the constitution. Probably will ask them what type of Muslism are they. Are they interested in becoming a citizen? If no, they need to get out as soon as their country of origin is deemed safe. If yes, then the government need to figure out a Way to put them in a reasonable environment. Its not hard to make them fill up a form or two. you do realize there's a very extensive vetting process for getting into the US, right? Hey he asked ME to express my "idea of a strict standard". Ok, and you do realize your "strict standard" is probably less strict than the process we have in place now? On September 20 2016 01:52 KwarK wrote:
While I'm going to become a US citizen for purposes of convenience I doubt I will ever feel a primary loyalty to the United States over my homeland, nor have any great reverence for the constitution. Would I be allowed to stay? Dunno. As for me, I like this country and all, but I just happened to be born here. Hooray for birthright citizenship I guess. Then good, let's stay that way I guess.
So if the current strict standards for immigration are good and should stay. How can immigration be a problem?
|
On September 20 2016 02:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 01:59 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:52 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 00:41 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 00:28 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2016 22:11 Plansix wrote:On September 19 2016 22:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Bomb goes off in NY. Another goes off in NJ. Thankfully nobody is killed. Clinton is losing millennial support. To be fair, getting that age group to vote has been like calling cats for decades. Obama had the secret power to do so, but some could argue that it was using the same tactics some of us mocked Sanders for. The bombs are troubling, but Trump is mostly gloating about them. Which is not a great look at all. If goes into another anti Muslim immigration spree, I don’t think it will help him much. Well not according to this study: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-acism-america-most-disliked-group-discrimination-anti-mosque-a7311151.htmlMuslims are the more disliked group in America. That is not a good sign in my book considering that I have about the same chance to be killed by lightning as Islamic terrorism. But we are now heading towards the talked over discussion of “Muslims, can they live among us in peace?” Edit: I like how Trump links it to immigration, even though the guy is a US citizen, born here. This is the problem with Trump, that he connects events to things he believes are the cause. But in fact the cause is something else entirely and we are not focusing on addressing that problem. This guy was turned to terrorism somehow. They are recruited in some way And if we knew how, we could have stopped him earlier. But lets talk about refugees, because those are scary. Can you imagine a world where Canadians would randomly autocombust in a huge ball of flame at about the same rate as "terror" attacks? And the only cause was Canadian citizenship. Would we see reluctance to be around Canadians? How much of it depends on intentionality? If the Canadians were seen as victims of "the Canadian affliction" would that reduce the fear levels? Sure. Canada is a country to the north, with a limited population, a single goverment, a love for saying they are sorry. Muslims are 1.5 billion people across the entire world. You limit the discussions down to people from one country and its a discussion worth having. Wait what? What are you saying sure to? Are you saying that it's ok to ban all Syrians but not to ban Muslims? What if we reimagined the autocombusting Canadian scenario and made it into autocombusting Jews? I don't believe there is evidence that all Syrians an inherent danger and not refugees feeling a warzone, so a ban sounds excessive. Increased screening is in order. If there was overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of Syrians wanted to commit acts of violence against the US, a halt to immigration from that country might be in order. And no to the Jews thing.
Why is it OK to discriminate against Canadians, but not too discriminate against Jews?
|
On September 20 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 01:46 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 20 2016 01:44 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 01:07 Rebs wrote:On September 20 2016 00:56 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 00:52 Rebs wrote:On September 20 2016 00:46 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 00:41 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 00:28 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2016 22:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
To be fair, getting that age group to vote Has been like calling cats for decades. Obama had the SeCret Power to do so, but some could argue that it was using the same tactics some of us mocked Sanders for.
The bombs are troubling, but Drumpf is mostly gloating about them. Which is not a Great look at all. If goes into Another anti Muslim immigration spree, I don’t think it will heLp him much. Well not according to this study: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-acism-america-most-disliked-group-discrimination-anti-mosque-a7311151.htmlMuslims are the more disliked group in America. That is not a good sign in my book considering that I have about the same Chance to be killed by Lightning as Islamic terrorism. But we are now heading towards the talked over discussion of “Muslims, can they live among us in peace?” Yes and no. It depends on How much of their book do they follow. And you can't rule out people's NaTuRal instinct of survival. If one group of people have statistically higher Chance of causing harm toward others, then you can't blame others for expressing their distrust toward that group of people since we do live in a western society where Freedom of expression is allowed. Again with the book shit, the cluelessness is real, its also why you will never solve this problem. Statistically speaking American Muslims have a lower Chance of causing harm to the average american than cops and whacko White dudes. Cops have plenty of distrust granted, but no one seems to have a problem with White dudes. There won't be any problems as long as the border Control have a strict set of standard to abide by. What is your idea of a strict standard? They have to be capable of two marketable skills that does not include harming any other people or have any previous criminal records. The marketable skills may not be like a Great artists or a Great technician but they do need to be at a decent level. Something to demonstrate those skills like a piece of software, an artpiece, blueprint, projects done, etc. Their immediate family members can enter too assuming that they do not have any previous criminal records. Have to agree on the constitution. Probably will ask them what type of Muslism are they. Are they interested in becoming a citizen? If no, they need to get out as soon as their country of origin is deemed safe. If yes, then the government need to figure out a Way to put them in a reasonable environment. Its not hard to make them fill up a form or two. you do realize there's a very extensive vetting process for getting into the US, right? I was about to say, that looks very similar to the US vetting process. We don't just let anyone in.
The US vetting process is pretty stringent, and often rather ridiculous in its requirements. My own family had to jump through a lot of bizarre hoops to be admitted. But I don't support relaxing those criteria without an intelligent assessment of what makes someone a good immigrant rather than a bad one, because an "open the floodgates" approach to immigration is idiotic.
|
On September 20 2016 02:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 01:59 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:52 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 00:41 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 00:28 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2016 22:11 Plansix wrote:On September 19 2016 22:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Bomb goes off in NY. Another goes off in NJ. Thankfully nobody is killed. Clinton is losing millennial support. To be fair, getting that age group to vote has been like calling cats for decades. Obama had the secret power to do so, but some could argue that it was using the same tactics some of us mocked Sanders for. The bombs are troubling, but Trump is mostly gloating about them. Which is not a great look at all. If goes into another anti Muslim immigration spree, I don’t think it will help him much. Well not according to this study: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-acism-america-most-disliked-group-discrimination-anti-mosque-a7311151.htmlMuslims are the more disliked group in America. That is not a good sign in my book considering that I have about the same chance to be killed by lightning as Islamic terrorism. But we are now heading towards the talked over discussion of “Muslims, can they live among us in peace?” Edit: I like how Trump links it to immigration, even though the guy is a US citizen, born here. This is the problem with Trump, that he connects events to things he believes are the cause. But in fact the cause is something else entirely and we are not focusing on addressing that problem. This guy was turned to terrorism somehow. They are recruited in some way And if we knew how, we could have stopped him earlier. But lets talk about refugees, because those are scary. Can you imagine a world where Canadians would randomly autocombust in a huge ball of flame at about the same rate as "terror" attacks? And the only cause was Canadian citizenship. Would we see reluctance to be around Canadians? How much of it depends on intentionality? If the Canadians were seen as victims of "the Canadian affliction" would that reduce the fear levels? Sure. Canada is a country to the north, with a limited population, a single goverment, a love for saying they are sorry. Muslims are 1.5 billion people across the entire world. You limit the discussions down to people from one country and its a discussion worth having. Wait what? What are you saying sure to? Are you saying that it's ok to ban all Syrians but not to ban Muslims? What if we reimagined the autocombusting Canadian scenario and made it into autocombusting Jews? I don't believe there is evidence that all Syrians an inherent danger and not refugees feeling a warzone, so a ban sounds excessive. Increased screening is in order. If there was overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of Syrians wanted to commit acts of violence against the US, a halt to immigration from that country might be in order. And no to the Jews thing.
The question is: if a population presented itself as a danger to the public just by virtue of being part of the population (ie a guaranteed percentage of them would autocombust and engulf everything around them in a ball of flame) would it be ok for the public to prevent anyone from the population from entering the nation?
|
On September 20 2016 02:12 LegalLord wrote:
The US vetting process is pretty stringent, and often rather ridiculous in its requirements. My own family had to jump through a lot of bizarre hoops to be admitted. But I don't support relaxing those criteria without an intelligent assessment of what makes someone a good immigrant rather than a bad one, because an "open the floodgates" approach to immigration is idiotic.
Has anyone in this thread openly supported such a change?
|
I'm not keen on this auto combusting thought experiment since it seems to imply that people from certain places are defunct humans and are bound to randomly cause harm. Syrians should be subject to more stringent screening because their country of origin is engaged in a civil war and is home to an active terrorist group not because there is something inherently wrong with Syrians.
|
On September 20 2016 02:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 02:06 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:59 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:52 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 00:41 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 00:28 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2016 22:11 Plansix wrote:On September 19 2016 22:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Bomb goes off in NY. Another goes off in NJ. Thankfully nobody is killed. Clinton is losing millennial support. To be fair, getting that age group to vote has been like calling cats for decades. Obama had the secret power to do so, but some could argue that it was using the same tactics some of us mocked Sanders for. The bombs are troubling, but Trump is mostly gloating about them. Which is not a great look at all. If goes into another anti Muslim immigration spree, I don’t think it will help him much. Well not according to this study: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-acism-america-most-disliked-group-discrimination-anti-mosque-a7311151.htmlMuslims are the more disliked group in America. That is not a good sign in my book considering that I have about the same chance to be killed by lightning as Islamic terrorism. But we are now heading towards the talked over discussion of “Muslims, can they live among us in peace?” Edit: I like how Trump links it to immigration, even though the guy is a US citizen, born here. This is the problem with Trump, that he connects events to things he believes are the cause. But in fact the cause is something else entirely and we are not focusing on addressing that problem. This guy was turned to terrorism somehow. They are recruited in some way And if we knew how, we could have stopped him earlier. But lets talk about refugees, because those are scary. Can you imagine a world where Canadians would randomly autocombust in a huge ball of flame at about the same rate as "terror" attacks? And the only cause was Canadian citizenship. Would we see reluctance to be around Canadians? How much of it depends on intentionality? If the Canadians were seen as victims of "the Canadian affliction" would that reduce the fear levels? Sure. Canada is a country to the north, with a limited population, a single goverment, a love for saying they are sorry. Muslims are 1.5 billion people across the entire world. You limit the discussions down to people from one country and its a discussion worth having. Wait what? What are you saying sure to? Are you saying that it's ok to ban all Syrians but not to ban Muslims? What if we reimagined the autocombusting Canadian scenario and made it into autocombusting Jews? I don't believe there is evidence that all Syrians an inherent danger and not refugees feeling a warzone, so a ban sounds excessive. Increased screening is in order. If there was overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of Syrians wanted to commit acts of violence against the US, a halt to immigration from that country might be in order. And no to the Jews thing. Why is it OK to discriminate against Canadians, but not too discriminate against Jews?
I should have been clearer. In the crazy world he proposed the Canadians randomly burst into flames and then we switched it over to Jews and I decide it was too silly to discuss. I should have been clearer. We ban people from regions that have dangerous diseases too. But there is no disease that only Jews carry.
On September 20 2016 02:17 CobaltBlu wrote:
I'm not keen on this auto combusting thought experiment since it seems to imply that people from certain places are defunct humans and are bound to randomly cause harm. Syrians should be subject to more stringent screening because their country of origin is engaged in a civil war and is home to an active terrorist group not because there is something inherently wrong with Syrians.
They also don't burst into flames on purpose.
|
On September 20 2016 02:16 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 02:12 LegalLord wrote:
The US vetting process is pretty stringent, and often rather ridiculous in its requirements. My own family had to jump through a lot of bizarre hoops to be admitted. But I don't support relaxing those criteria without an intelligent assessment of what makes someone a good immigrant rather than a bad one, because an "open the floodgates" approach to immigration is idiotic. Has anyone in this thread openly supported such a change?
Taking dramatically more immigrants, as is the plan of Hillary's team, implicitly comes with some relaxation of criteria unless someone is willing to do a lot more work processing all those applications. It's not clear that that will happen, but the likelihood is not small.
|
On September 20 2016 02:17 CobaltBlu wrote:
I'm not keen on this auto combusting thought experiment since it seems to imply that people from certain places are defunct humans and are bound to randomly cause harm. Syrians should be subject to more stringent screening because their country of origin is engaged in a civil war and is home to an active terrorist group not because there is something inherently wrong with Syrians.
im confused. you are against thought experiments because you think people might become confused? you can raise that objection as the analysis progresses. we are plumbing into the depths here to get our foundations in order and ultimately clear up confusions.
|
On September 20 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 02:16 TheYango wrote:On September 20 2016 02:12 LegalLord wrote:
The US vetting process is pretty stringent, and often rather ridiculous in its requirements. My own family had to jump through a lot of bizarre hoops to be admitted. But I don't support relaxing those criteria without an intelligent assessment of what makes someone a good immigrant rather than a bad one, because an "open the floodgates" approach to immigration is idiotic. Has anyone in this thread openly supported such a change? Taking dramatically more immigrants, as is the plan of Hillary's team, implicitly comes with some relaxation of criteria unless someone is willing to do a lot more work processing all those applications. It's not clear that that will happen, but the likelihood is not small.
You are going to have to be more specific. There is a lot of places people immigrate from that have different policies in the US.
|
On September 20 2016 02:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 02:17 CobaltBlu wrote:
I'm not keen on this auto combusting thought experiment since it seems to imply that people from certain places are defunct humans and are bound to randomly cause harm. Syrians should be subject to more stringent screening because their country of origin is engaged in a civil war and is home to an active terrorist group not because there is something inherently wrong with Syrians. im confused. you are against thought experiments because you think people might become confused? you can raise that objection as the analysis progresses. we are plumbing into the depths here to get our foundations in order and ultimately clear up confusions.
The thought experiment removes free will to commit or not commit the violent act, which is a key part of the discussion current discussion.
|
On September 20 2016 02:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 02:11 Acrofales wrote:On September 20 2016 02:06 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:59 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:52 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 00:41 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 00:28 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2016 22:11 Plansix wrote:On September 19 2016 22:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Bomb goes off in NY. Another goes off in NJ. Thankfully nobody is killed. Clinton is losing millennial support. To be fair, getting that age group to vote has been like calling cats for decades. Obama had the secret power to do so, but some could argue that it was using the same tactics some of us mocked Sanders for. The bombs are troubling, but Trump is mostly gloating about them. Which is not a great look at all. If goes into another anti Muslim immigration spree, I don’t think it will help him much. Well not according to this study: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-acism-america-most-disliked-group-discrimination-anti-mosque-a7311151.htmlMuslims are the more disliked group in America. That is not a good sign in my book considering that I have about the same chance to be killed by lightning as Islamic terrorism. But we are now heading towards the talked over discussion of “Muslims, can they live among us in peace?” Edit: I like how Trump links it to immigration, even though the guy is a US citizen, born here. This is the problem with Trump, that he connects events to things he believes are the cause. But in fact the cause is something else entirely and we are not focusing on addressing that problem. This guy was turned to terrorism somehow. They are recruited in some way And if we knew how, we could have stopped him earlier. But lets talk about refugees, because those are scary. Can you imagine a world where Canadians would randomly autocombust in a huge ball of flame at about the same rate as "terror" attacks? And the only cause was Canadian citizenship. Would we see reluctance to be around Canadians? How much of it depends on intentionality? If the Canadians were seen as victims of "the Canadian affliction" would that reduce the fear levels? Sure. Canada is a country to the north, with a limited population, a single goverment, a love for saying they are sorry. Muslims are 1.5 billion people across the entire world. You limit the discussions down to people from one country and its a discussion worth having. Wait what? What are you saying sure to? Are you saying that it's ok to ban all Syrians but not to ban Muslims? What if we reimagined the autocombusting Canadian scenario and made it into autocombusting Jews? I don't believe there is evidence that all Syrians an inherent danger and not refugees feeling a warzone, so a ban sounds excessive. Increased screening is in order. If there was overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of Syrians wanted to commit acts of violence against the US, a halt to immigration from that country might be in order. And no to the Jews thing. Why is it OK to discriminate against Canadians, but not too discriminate against Jews? I should have been clearer. In the crazy world he proposed the Canadians randomly burst into flames and then we switched it over to Jews and I decide it was too silly to discuss. I should have been clearer. We ban people from regions that have dangerous diseases too. But there is no disease that only Jews carry. Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 02:17 CobaltBlu wrote:
I'm not keen on this auto combusting thought experiment since it seems to imply that people from certain places are defunct humans and are bound to randomly cause harm. Syrians should be subject to more stringent screening because their country of origin is engaged in a civil war and is home to an active terrorist group not because there is something inherently wrong with Syrians. They also don't burst into flames on purpose.
so you dont think its ok to ban a population of statistically certain autocombusters if its an involuntary affliction even if they ultimately might kill a lot of people and cause a lot of damage?
but perhaps if they could decide to autocombust and were essentially always walking around as human bombs, and statistically a small percentage of them would decide to blow themselves up, then you would be for banning the whole population?
|
On September 20 2016 02:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 02:17 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 02:11 Acrofales wrote:On September 20 2016 02:06 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:59 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:52 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 00:41 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 00:28 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2016 22:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
To be fair, getting that age group to vote has been like calling cats for decades. Obama had the secret power to do so, but some could argue that it was using the same tactics some of us mocked Sanders for.
The bombs are troubling, but Trump is mostly gloating about them. Which is not a great look at all. If goes into another anti Muslim immigration spree, I don’t think it will help him much. Well not according to this study: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-acism-america-most-disliked-group-discrimination-anti-mosque-a7311151.htmlMuslims are the more disliked group in America. That is not a good sign in my book considering that I have about the same chance to be killed by lightning as Islamic terrorism. But we are now heading towards the talked over discussion of “Muslims, can they live among us in peace?” Edit: I like how Trump links it to immigration, even though the guy is a US citizen, born here. This is the problem with Trump, that he connects events to things he believes are the cause. But in fact the cause is something else entirely and we are not focusing on addressing that problem. This guy was turned to terrorism somehow. They are recruited in some way And if we knew how, we could have stopped him earlier. But lets talk about refugees, because those are scary. Can you imagine a world where Canadians would randomly autocombust in a huge ball of flame at about the same rate as "terror" attacks? And the only cause was Canadian citizenship. Would we see reluctance to be around Canadians? How much of it depends on intentionality? If the Canadians were seen as victims of "the Canadian affliction" would that reduce the fear levels? Sure. Canada is a country to the north, with a limited population, a single goverment, a love for saying they are sorry. Muslims are 1.5 billion people across the entire world. You limit the discussions down to people from one country and its a discussion worth having. Wait what? What are you saying sure to? Are you saying that it's ok to ban all Syrians but not to ban Muslims? What if we reimagined the autocombusting Canadian scenario and made it into autocombusting Jews? I don't believe there is evidence that all Syrians an inherent danger and not refugees feeling a warzone, so a ban sounds excessive. Increased screening is in order. If there was overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of Syrians wanted to commit acts of violence against the US, a halt to immigration from that country might be in order. And no to the Jews thing. Why is it OK to discriminate against Canadians, but not too discriminate against Jews? I should have been clearer. In the crazy world he proposed the Canadians randomly burst into flames and then we switched it over to Jews and I decide it was too silly to discuss. I should have been clearer. We ban people from regions that have dangerous diseases too. But there is no disease that only Jews carry. On September 20 2016 02:17 CobaltBlu wrote:
I'm not keen on this auto combusting thought experiment since it seems to imply that people from certain places are defunct humans and are bound to randomly cause harm. Syrians should be subject to more stringent screening because their country of origin is engaged in a civil war and is home to an active terrorist group not because there is something inherently wrong with Syrians. They also don't burst into flames on purpose. so you dont think its ok to ban a population of statistically certain autocombusters if its an involuntary affliction even if they ultimately might kill a lot of people and cause a lot of damage? but perhaps if they could decide to autocombust and were essentially always walking around as human bombs, and statistically a small percentage of them would decide to blow themselves up then you would be for banning the whole population?
I already said this thought experiment was a little silly, since you are giving a set of people super powers and then trying to say they are like refugees from Syria because they blow up.
If someone’s religion requires that they carry around a loaded and primed flame thrower at all times, I feel fine about limiting the religious freedom.
|
On September 20 2016 02:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 02:17 CobaltBlu wrote:
I'm not keen on this auto combusting thought experiment since it seems to imply that people from certain places are defunct humans and are bound to randomly cause harm. Syrians should be subject to more stringent screening because their country of origin is engaged in a civil war and is home to an active terrorist group not because there is something inherently wrong with Syrians. im confused. you are against thought experiments because you think people might become confused? you can raise that objection as the analysis progresses. we are plumbing into the depths here to get our foundations in order and ultimately clear up confusions.
I'm not sure how you expect to clear confusions by basically presenting a specific immigration as a breach of quarantine.
|
On September 20 2016 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 02:24 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 02:17 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 02:11 Acrofales wrote:On September 20 2016 02:06 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:59 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 01:52 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 00:41 Plansix wrote:That is not a good sign in my book considering that I have about the same chance to be killed by lightning as Islamic terrorism. But we are now heading towards the talked over discussion of “Muslims, can they live among us in peace?” Edit: I like how Trump links it to immigration, even though the guy is a US citizen, born here. This is the problem with Trump, that he connects events to things he believes are the cause. But in fact the cause is something else entirely and we are not focusing on addressing that problem. This guy was turned to terrorism somehow. They are recruited in some way And if we knew how, we could have stopped him earlier. But lets talk about refugees, because those are scary. Can you imagine a world where Canadians would randomly autocombust in a huge ball of flame at about the same rate as "terror" attacks? And the only cause was Canadian citizenship. Would we see reluctance to be around Canadians? How much of it depends on intentionality? If the Canadians were seen as victims of "the Canadian affliction" would that reduce the fear levels? Sure. Canada is a country to the north, with a limited population, a single goverment, a love for saying they are sorry. Muslims are 1.5 billion people across the entire world. You limit the discussions down to people from one country and its a discussion worth having. Wait what? What are you saying sure to? Are you saying that it's ok to ban all Syrians but not to ban Muslims? What if we reimagined the autocombusting Canadian scenario and made it into autocombusting Jews? I don't believe there is evidence that all Syrians an inherent danger and not refugees feeling a warzone, so a ban sounds excessive. Increased screening is in order. If there was overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of Syrians wanted to commit acts of violence against the US, a halt to immigration from that country might be in order. And no to the Jews thing. Why is it OK to discriminate against Canadians, but not too discriminate against Jews? I should have been clearer. In the crazy world he proposed the Canadians randomly burst into flames and then we switched it over to Jews and I decide it was too silly to discuss. I should have been clearer. We ban people from regions that have dangerous diseases too. But there is no disease that only Jews carry. On September 20 2016 02:17 CobaltBlu wrote:
I'm not keen on this auto combusting thought experiment since it seems to imply that people from certain places are defunct humans and are bound to randomly cause harm. Syrians should be subject to more stringent screening because their country of origin is engaged in a civil war and is home to an active terrorist group not because there is something inherently wrong with Syrians. They also don't burst into flames on purpose. so you dont think its ok to ban a population of statistically certain autocombusters if its an involuntary affliction even if they ultimately might kill a lot of people and cause a lot of damage? but perhaps if they could decide to autocombust and were essentially always walking around as human bombs, and statistically a small percentage of them would decide to blow themselves up then you would be for banning the whole population? I already said this thought experiment was a little silly, since you are giving a set of people super powers and then trying to say they are like refugees from Syria because they blow up. If someone’s religion requires that they carry around a loaded and primed flame thrower at all times, I feel fine about limiting the religious freedom.
xdaunt asked about whether it was conceivable to ever ban a population based upon population characteristics. you made the comment that you might die from lightning. i wondered whether the natural, "act of god" character in lightning strikes would be different if it were embodied in a population. lets extricate the fear of mortality, or of divine justice in a sense, from the fear of the other.
|
Norway28911 Posts
what if there's already present a number of people who might statistically be more likely to become autocombusters if they are discriminated against by the reasoning that they are more likely to autocombust than other people? Like, say there are 1000000 people living somewhere, and they have an autocombustability rate of 1/100000, so 10 of those are gonna autocombust the next year. Then, from the outside, there's a group of 100000 people, who are exactly the same as that first group, except their autocombustability rate is 20/100000- so by admitting that group, you'd have a tripling of the autocombusting. However, the first group of 1000000 which has a current autocombustability rate of 1/100000 is going to somehow start combusting more frequently if the first group is not admitted (because the restriction of access to that group is bound to be coupled with distrust and mistreatment towards people who seem to belong to that group and people experiencing distrust and mistreatment are more likely to autocombust), perhaps reaching an autocombustability rate of 5/100000, which would be more total than what we'd experience allowing the initial group of high-risk autocombusters to enter.
|
On September 20 2016 02:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 02:21 IgnE wrote:On September 20 2016 02:17 CobaltBlu wrote:
I'm not keen on this auto combusting thought experiment since it seems to imply that people from certain places are defunct humans and are bound to randomly cause harm. Syrians should be subject to more stringent screening because their country of origin is engaged in a civil war and is home to an active terrorist group not because there is something inherently wrong with Syrians. im confused. you are against thought experiments because you think people might become confused? you can raise that objection as the analysis progresses. we are plumbing into the depths here to get our foundations in order and ultimately clear up confusions. I'm not sure how you expect to clear confusions by basically presenting a specific immigration as a breach of quarantine.
in a sense isn't that what opposition to syrian refugees is about? or even the idea of quarantining muslims until they civilize themselves? i dont think your objection makes sense
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
