|
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 January 30 2017 09:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote:On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical. This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. Wait. What? Sure I am, but let's not single out Muslims here... how about: We don't have to go as far as the Spanish Inquisition to find the populations of Christians that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Midwestern states? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well.
We are all bothered by the bigots that already exist in this country, but because the constitution protects them fully we just have to live along side one another and get along the best we can. However the constitution does not give a shit about bigots outside the border of the USA, for which we should completely limit and restrict from entering as to not make it worse.
|
On January 30 2017 09:12 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 09:08 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote:On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical. This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. Wait. What? Sure I am, but let's not single out Muslims here... how about: We don't have to go as far as the Spanish Inquisition to find the populations of Christians that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Midwestern states? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. We are all bothered by the bigots that already exist in this country, but because the constitution protects them fully we just have to live along side one another and get along the best we can. However the constitution does not give a shit about bigots outside the border of the USA, for which we should completely limit and restrict from entering as to not make it worse.
And everyone holding a citizenship of those 7 countries is a bigot... Makes sense, finally.
|
On January 30 2017 09:16 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 09:12 biology]major wrote:On January 30 2017 09:08 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote:On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical. This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. Wait. What? Sure I am, but let's not single out Muslims here... how about: We don't have to go as far as the Spanish Inquisition to find the populations of Christians that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Midwestern states? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. We are all bothered by the bigots that already exist in this country, but because the constitution protects them fully we just have to live along side one another and get along the best we can. However the constitution does not give a shit about bigots outside the border of the USA, for which we should completely limit and restrict from entering as to not make it worse. And everyone holding a citizenship of those 7 countries is a bigot... Makes sense, finally.
Until you can tell me how we can seperate the radicals, sympathizers, idealogues with backward views, and regular muslims who view gays/women/apostates/agnostics/atheists equally sure we should ban every middle eastern country, including SA, Egypt, and UAE.
|
On January 30 2017 09:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote:On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical. This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. Wait. What? Sure I am, but let's not single out Muslims here... how about: We don't have to go as far as the Spanish Inquisition to find the populations of Christians that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Midwestern states? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well.
The battle line in the US on these issues lies between "tolerance" and "acceptance." The Muslim nations haven't even gotten to "tolerance" yet. There is a huge difference between where the cultures are.
|
On January 30 2017 09:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 09:16 mahrgell wrote:On January 30 2017 09:12 biology]major wrote:On January 30 2017 09:08 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote:On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical. This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. Wait. What? Sure I am, but let's not single out Muslims here... how about: We don't have to go as far as the Spanish Inquisition to find the populations of Christians that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Midwestern states? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. We are all bothered by the bigots that already exist in this country, but because the constitution protects them fully we just have to live along side one another and get along the best we can. However the constitution does not give a shit about bigots outside the border of the USA, for which we should completely limit and restrict from entering as to not make it worse. And everyone holding a citizenship of those 7 countries is a bigot... Makes sense, finally. Until you can tell me how we can seperate the radicals, sympathizers, idealogues with backward views, and regular muslims who view gays/women/apostates/agnostics/atheists equally sure we should ban every middle eastern country, including SA, Egypt, and UAE.
how do you know the current system does not in fact do that fairly well?
a 12 month vetting process with loads of interviews should shed quite a bit of light on that topic.
part of the real issue is, if we want people compatible with american values, just what are those american values?
There's a number of very different answers from Americans as to what "american values" are. that makes it quite a bit trickier.
|
On January 30 2017 09:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 09:16 mahrgell wrote:On January 30 2017 09:12 biology]major wrote:On January 30 2017 09:08 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote:On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical. This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. Wait. What? Sure I am, but let's not single out Muslims here... how about: We don't have to go as far as the Spanish Inquisition to find the populations of Christians that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Midwestern states? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. We are all bothered by the bigots that already exist in this country, but because the constitution protects them fully we just have to live along side one another and get along the best we can. However the constitution does not give a shit about bigots outside the border of the USA, for which we should completely limit and restrict from entering as to not make it worse. And everyone holding a citizenship of those 7 countries is a bigot... Makes sense, finally. Until you can tell me how we can seperate the radicals, sympathizers, idealogues with backward views, and regular muslims who view gays/women/apostates/agnostics/atheists equally sure we should ban every middle eastern country, including SA, Egypt, and UAE.
I think you have to ban the world here. I think there is someone problematic in every however small population on this planet.
And then you should really look in your own population, because looking at recent results, the number of radicals, sympathizers and ideologues with backward views seems to spike drastically. And this isn't stemming from immigrants.
|
I'd argue that my girlfriend has Western values. And she's a Muslim, albeit not from one of those countries in Trump's list.
To clarify, I don't mean that as an anecdote, but more as an example that it is dumb to declare Muslims personae non gratae as a group just because a bunch of extreme Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia like to hang homosexuals and stone rape victims.
|
On January 30 2017 09:24 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 09:19 biology]major wrote:On January 30 2017 09:16 mahrgell wrote:On January 30 2017 09:12 biology]major wrote:On January 30 2017 09:08 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2017 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 07:45 Blisse wrote:On January 30 2017 06:53 xDaunt wrote:On January 30 2017 06:31 TheYango wrote:On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound. While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical. This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation. I unequivocally disagree. This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims. In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with. No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same. We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. Wait. What? Sure I am, but let's not single out Muslims here... how about: We don't have to go as far as the Spanish Inquisition to find the populations of Christians that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Midwestern states? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well. We are all bothered by the bigots that already exist in this country, but because the constitution protects them fully we just have to live along side one another and get along the best we can. However the constitution does not give a shit about bigots outside the border of the USA, for which we should completely limit and restrict from entering as to not make it worse. And everyone holding a citizenship of those 7 countries is a bigot... Makes sense, finally. Until you can tell me how we can seperate the radicals, sympathizers, idealogues with backward views, and regular muslims who view gays/women/apostates/agnostics/atheists equally sure we should ban every middle eastern country, including SA, Egypt, and UAE. I think you have to ban the world here. I think there is someone problematic in every however small population on this planet. And then you should really look in your own population, because looking at recent results, the number of radicals, sympathizers and ideologues with backward views seems to spike drastically. And this isn't stemming from immigrants.
The question is to the degree and number of crazies. I would argue that everyone in the first 3 categories do not deserve entry into the US (as in there are many other western value loving, educated applicants willing to immigrate here instead). From the research and surveys I have seen and referenced here earlier, those 3 categories make up a significant portion (>40%) of the middle east and represent the state of it's predominant culture.
|
On January 30 2017 09:34 biology]major wrote:
The question is to the degree and number of crazies. I would argue that everyone in the first 3 categories do not deserve entry into the US (as in there are many other western value loving, educated applicants willing to immigrate here instead). From the research and surveys I have seen and referenced here earlier, those 3 categories make up a significant portion (>40%) of the middle east and represent the state of it's predominant culture.
Do you feel that existing mechanisms for vetting immigrants are insufficient for weeding out groups 1, 2, and 3? More specifically, do you feel that those existing mechanisms are so poor that a blanket ban is a superior option? If so, what evidence do you have to demonstrate the inadequacy of those systems?
|
On January 30 2017 09:25 Acrofales wrote:
I'd argue that my girlfriend has Western values. And she's a Muslim, albeit not from one of those countries in Trump's list.
To clarify, I don't mean that as an anecdote, but more as an example that it is dumb to declare Muslims personae non gratae as a group just because a bunch of extreme Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia like to hang homosexuals and stone rape victims.
I don't think that anyone here is going to argue that all Muslims are incompatible with Western culture. The issue is how to balance letting in the Muslims that are compatible with Western culture while keeping out the Muslims that are incompatible with it. This is basically the stated purpose of Trump's executive order and the concept behind his desire to create an "extreme vetting process."
|
It's not clear to me that Trump has bothered to do his homework on the existing vetting process, nor am I assured that he and his team have the expertise to come up with something that is a sufficient improvement over current processes to warrant the hubbub of this ban.
If anything, the trainwreck that the implementation of the current EO became makes me more convinced of the Trump team's incompetence.
|
On January 30 2017 09:40 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 09:34 biology]major wrote:
The question is to the degree and number of crazies. I would argue that everyone in the first 3 categories do not deserve entry into the US (as in there are many other western value loving, educated applicants willing to immigrate here instead). From the research and surveys I have seen and referenced here earlier, those 3 categories make up a significant portion (>40%) of the middle east and represent the state of it's predominant culture. Do you feel that existing mechanisms for vetting immigrants are insufficient for weeding out groups 1, 2, and 3? More specifically, do you feel that those existing mechanisms are so poor that a blanket ban is a superior option? If so, what evidence do you have to demonstrate the inadequacy of those systems?
I don't have any evidence to answer those questions. We have a temporary ban and in the mean time an improved vetting process will be put in place, which I don't see as a bad thing.
|
On January 30 2017 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 09:25 Acrofales wrote:
I'd argue that my girlfriend has Western values. And she's a Muslim, albeit not from one of those countries in Trump's list.
To clarify, I don't mean that as an anecdote, but more as an example that it is dumb to declare Muslims personae non gratae as a group just because a bunch of extreme Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia like to hang homosexuals and stone rape victims. I don't think that anyone here is going to argue that all Muslims are incompatible with Western culture. The issue is how to balance letting in the Muslims that are compatible with Western culture while keeping out the Muslims that are incompatible with it. This is basically the stated purpose of Trump's executive order and the concept behind his desire to create an "extreme vetting process."
My problem is even if you grant him that, it's still a piss poor way to do it. Detaining 80 year olds for 30+ hours for "extreme vetting" is a waste of everyone's time, money, and just outright stupid.
|
On January 30 2017 09:43 biology]major wrote:
I don't have any evidence to answer those questions. We have a temporary ban and in the mean time an improved vetting process will be put in place, which I don't see as a bad thing.
Again, I have my skepticism toward the idea that Trump's version of the vetting process will be in any way "improved". He has yet to demonstrate any real competency in working out the fine details in government procedure and protocol. Even you acknowledged the failure in implementation of Trump's EO.
Good ideas implemented poorly end up just being bad ideas. That should have been made clear during Obama's presidency, and it's a lesson that we should mind now.
|
On January 30 2017 09:43 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 09:40 TheYango wrote:On January 30 2017 09:34 biology]major wrote:
The question is to the degree and number of crazies. I would argue that everyone in the first 3 categories do not deserve entry into the US (as in there are many other western value loving, educated applicants willing to immigrate here instead). From the research and surveys I have seen and referenced here earlier, those 3 categories make up a significant portion (>40%) of the middle east and represent the state of it's predominant culture. Do you feel that existing mechanisms for vetting immigrants are insufficient for weeding out groups 1, 2, and 3? More specifically, do you feel that those existing mechanisms are so poor that a blanket ban is a superior option? If so, what evidence do you have to demonstrate the inadequacy of those systems? I don't have any evidence to answer those questions. We have a temporary ban and in the mean time an improved vetting process will be put in place, which I don't see as a bad thing.
or maybe there was already a good thorough vetting system in place and this ban is just ill-thought out nonsense.
I mean, the existing systems were already pretty thorough, so before putting in this kind of stupid solution, it makes more sense to take a close look at the existing system, and try to classify the flaws it has.
you simply have no basis to conclude the existing system was bad in the first place, or that trump will be able to improve on it, given his track record on the finre details of policy implementation.
you're assuming this temporary ban is a stopgap solution is because the current system is poor, but there's no actual basis for that without an understanding of what the current system is. All you hvae is a politician railing about it (which they would do no matter the quality of the underlying system, cuz that's how politics is)
|
I just want to know when Trump is going to address the increasing number of young white male terrorists which have killed more Americans in the US than terrorists claiming allegiance to ISIS.
|
On January 30 2017 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I just want to know when Trump is going to address the increasing number of young white male terrorists which have killed more Americans in the US than terrorists claiming allegiance to ISIS.
Why not focus on the violence perpetrated by African Americans then?
|
Okay, let's return to this idea of 50% of Muslims wanting Sharia law. So what? Most of these surveys are held in developing countries, where education is bad, and religion is an important part of the culture. To illuminate the situation, let's look at another Pew study here:
http://www.pewforum.org/2010/04/15/executive-summary-islam-and-christianity-in-sub-saharan-africa/
The whole thing is quite interesting, but the relevant bit is quite far down: a similar percentage of Christians in sub-saharan Africa want biblical law as Muslims want sharia law.
Now this is important, because it basically means that there is no big difference between Christians and Muslims: there is a difference between developed and developing nations.
|
On January 30 2017 09:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I just want to know when Trump is going to address the increasing number of young white male terrorists which have killed more Americans in the US than terrorists claiming allegiance to ISIS. Why not focus on the violence perpetrated by African Americans then?
He's already talked about that, but nothing on the pretty regularly occurring mass murders committed by young white men.
|
On January 30 2017 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2017 09:25 Acrofales wrote:
I'd argue that my girlfriend has Western values. And she's a Muslim, albeit not from one of those countries in Trump's list.
To clarify, I don't mean that as an anecdote, but more as an example that it is dumb to declare Muslims personae non gratae as a group just because a bunch of extreme Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia like to hang homosexuals and stone rape victims. I don't think that anyone here is going to argue that all Muslims are incompatible with Western culture. The issue is how to balance letting in the Muslims that are compatible with Western culture while keeping out the Muslims that are incompatible with it. This is basically the stated purpose of Trump's executive order and the concept behind his desire to create an "extreme vetting process."
Do you think the vetting practice in place was insufficient, and if so, sufficiently bad to merit draconian measures like prohibiting green card holders from entering the country?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
