or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread - Page 28

post #406 of 1314
PS:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure 

But perhaps the real reason I mock your position: it starts with an oversimplification as if it were truth and then keeps proclaiming on a "solution" that's not a solution at all. "Banning Muslim immigration" makes no sense. I keep asking you or others who mostly agree with you what you could possible mean. Ban all Muslims via a religious identity test? Muslims from specific nations? Who gets to choose? What happens to Muslims nations that are our allies, like Jordan? Or what about Muslim-majority countries like Malaysia? Do we stop granting visas? Of all sorts? (After all, the 9-11 attackers had visas.) Or do we only blocking refugees? If I have any firm position, it's that a blanket claim, "Let's stop letting Muslims in!" is risible for practical and strategic reasons in addition to ones of principle; I'm derisive because we might as well be talking in smart, detailed ways but instead we're taking time bickering over a childish and reductive non-position.
post #407 of 1314
A fellow who knew the killer explains how racist it is to assume other Muslims were complicit just because his mosque happened to produce two terrorists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/20/i-reported-omar-mateen-to-the-fbi-trump-is-wrong-that-muslims-dont-do-our-part/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
post #408 of 1314
I don't have a subscription to the Washington Post, so I can't read the article. The split second of access showed me the title, which proclaims that this fellow had reported the guy to the FBI. Way to bury the lede, Ataturk.

But at any rate, I'll just take your word for it that this same fellow (who had reported the killer to the FBI) goes on to rely excessively on the denial of guilt-by-association when it comes to his own mosque. So how far would you like us, in backlash response, to apply guilt-by-association logic? Should we assume most Muslims think like this fellow (who had reported a future terrorist to the FBI and now has the audacity to deny guilt by association)? Basically all Muslims? Or is this a zinger against libruls who fail to see how guilt by association is a pretty good principle--I mean, not in general, but when it comes to Muslims of a certain, uhh, variety, then sure.

Plz advise. Again--I don't have access to the article so I'll defer to your characteristically unbiased acumen.
post #409 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

I don't have a subscription to the Washington Post, so I can't read the article. The split second of access showed me the title, which proclaims that this fellow had reported the guy to the FBI. Way to bury the lede, Ataturk.

But at any rate, I'll just take your word for it that this same fellow (who had reported the killer to the FBI) goes on to rely excessively on the denial of guilt-by-association when it comes to his own mosque. So how far would you like us, in backlash response, to apply guilt-by-association logic? Should we assume most Muslims think like this fellow (who had reported a future terrorist to the FBI and now has the audacity to deny guilt by association)? Basically all Muslims? Or is this a zinger against libruls who fail to see how guilt by association is a pretty good principle--I mean, not in general, but when it comes to Muslims of a certain, uhh, variety, then sure.

Plz advise. Again--I don't have access to the article so I'll defer to your characteristically unbiased acumen.

Sorry if you thought I was summarizing rather than criticizing the editorial I linked to.

As far as immigration goes, my maxim is pretty simple: what's in it for us? We have a long enough history to see what (or, I should say, who) works and who doesn't. People who will make our country more peaceful and prosperous and free ought to be welcomed, and people won't ought not be allowed to settle here. Nothing that accurately predicts that should be excluded from consideration, whether it be race, religion, or what have you. Of course those shouldn't be deciding factors, just "taken into consideration among qualified candidates," sort of like affirmative action but less racist.
post #410 of 1314
If peace is one of the key desiderata and all discriminatory options are on the table, then we should probably just bar all male immigrants.

Wheee this stupid game of pretend hypothetical governance sure is fun.
post #411 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

A fellow who knew the killer explains how racist it is to assume other Muslims were complicit just because his mosque happened to produce two terrorists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/20/i-reported-omar-mateen-to-the-fbi-trump-is-wrong-that-muslims-dont-do-our-part/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

Racism = precedence in this case.
post #412 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

If peace is one of the key desiderata and all discriminatory options are on the table, then we should probably just bar all male immigrants.

Wheee this stupid game of pretend hypothetical governance sure is fun.

or we could just ban muslim males as they are about x125* more likely to kill a person in terrorist attack than anyone else is on average or at least shamelessly profile them like Isreal does wink.gif (they are probably already unofficially profiled by FBI anyway)

* about 0.8% are muslim, half of them are male, more than 50% of terrorist deaths are done to islamic terrorism in states, so the probability is over 100 bigger than for any other random american.
Edited by wojt - 6/21/16 at 4:32am
post #413 of 1314
Was that English?
post #414 of 1314
post #415 of 1314
I loffed.
post #416 of 1314
Nice avatar.
post #417 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Sorry if you thought I was summarizing rather than criticizing the editorial I linked to.

As far as immigration goes, my maxim is pretty simple: what's in it for us? We have a long enough history to see what (or, I should say, who) works and who doesn't. People who will make our country more peaceful and prosperous and free ought to be welcomed, and people won't ought not be allowed to settle here. Nothing that accurately predicts that should be excluded from consideration, whether it be race, religion, or what have you. Of course those shouldn't be deciding factors, just "taken into consideration among qualified candidates," sort of like affirmative action but less racist.

And in this long history it was often deemed hard working and prosperous people might not be good for the existing white people so there's that going for your maxim.
post #418 of 1314

Some piece of shit drove a car bomb into a military checkpoint in Jordan. 

 

6 troops killed, 14 injured in car bomb attack on Syria border

post #419 of 1314
Fuck you, Jr.
post #420 of 1314
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread