Originally Posted by
wibblefox
The implication being that thus they are not facts...
And your point is?
Inaction is not the same as action, though utilitarians would argue otherwise.
Turning people away and actively denying them entry is action.
Because it's not a very interesting question. Turkey is Turkey, Syria is Syria, Iraq is Iraq. Turkey is now defacto Islamic and boarders on Islamic countries. More Arabic Muslims correlates highly to more terrorist attacks, that's true, so if that's what you are getting at, then I guess it is "more akin to Syria and Iraq".
A fruitless line of inquiry.
So if its more akin to these countries than the West, why did you find it dishonest to use those other countries but also dishonest to not use Turkey?? Seems pretty non-nonsensical tbh
"Given which countries are where I find it safe to assume that they use the top classification as the western world"
You seemed to think that the random Norwegian statistics had any bearing on what is and isn't a Western country. It doesn't, so why link it?
Its what
they see as the Western world, there is no clear definition on what the Western world is, so I used an organisation that should be pretty reliable's judgement on what the Western world is
I said I knew they were trying to join the EU, this doesnt say anything about joining the EEA independently from the EU.
They are not joining the EU anytime soon either as established.
...
You are grasping at straws mate, I don't know why you are trying to claim that Norway is the authority on what is or isn't western in the first place, but claiming that "oh they probably just ignored them because they are small" is just silly.
Why is that silly at all? How many immigrants from San Marino do you suppose Norway got since 1989??
Given the total number of immigrants is ~20 times San Marino's total population do you think this number is likely to make a big difference to the trends shown by the data? Do you think its negligable? Do you think if you were making the data clear you would decide to add to the first category "San Marino, Andorra, Morocco and Switzerland" despite the fact they have very little impact on what the data shows anyway?
In lieu of this, why do you think its so hard to imagine that that is why these countries were not added into the class?
In any case, if you think they werent just ignored because the data from these places was negligible, I suppose you also dont think this classification means the Western world?
Can you explain either -> why the countries were missed off in your opinion
OR -> if the countries were not meant to mean "The Western World" why the countries were grouped in such a way?
Are you purposefully using misleading language? If you acknowledge that it is only temporary then why do you keep saying things like "altogether", which implies that it is permanent?
Altogether does not imply permanency. It is synonymous with totally.
???
"It meant Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims IMMIGRATING to the United States, for a length of time which is undisclosed."
Correct.
If you know this, then I don't know why you keep projecting your opinion on to the policy the rest of the time.
Ok in that case can you explain what unwarranted opinion I projected on the meaning of the policy here.
The point Im trying to make is that as its written there the rule is negative discrimination against muslims in general because it doesnt matter where the muslim is from, whether the country is stable or not, they are barred from migration because they are assumed a terrorist threat. Assuming all muslims a terrorist threat no matter what their situation is strikes me as derogatory, and not a policy that could well negatively affect the lives of many innocent muslims as well as a portion of the public's opinion on people of that relgion.
In addition, I don't think this is defensible by arguing; he hadnt viewed it in that way and he made the adjustment to the proposal because the new version was his intention all along, because during a presidential campaign I would certainly expect the candidates to think through their proposals before they make them public, if they don't I don't feel safe about them thinking through their proposals as president either.
Last edited by SmallBowl; Aug 15, 2016 at 05:31 PM.