that's actually not what I'm saying at all...

there are plenty of other policies that we could try. we could draw up a whitelist of frequent/trusted fliers/travelers and force anyone who isn't whitelisted to prove themselves innocent of any ties to ISIS, be that through previous travel records, proof of residency over time, other religious affiliations, telephone history, etc.

if the line is at all blurry in a case, you just don't whitelist them. blinding ourselves to threats of any other ethnicity by pretending the threat is an entirely muslim one is pretty silly (as i've stressed)

that said, let's not forget i don't support anything of the sort. maybe time will prove me wrong, but I don't think the threat to the US is at all great enough right now to ever need to take such action


with people pulling strings behind the scenes, which particular puppet is being thrashed about is less important then the plans themselves.

you didn't say this couldn't happen with one guy, sure, but you're taking these incidents and speculating that a muslim ban would stop some percentage of them. Let me repeat: COMPLETE SPECULATION. Everything you've tried to reason from these incidents is complete bollocks, just stop

you can't with a straight face argue that i'm the one being woefully ignorant

you two have been arguing the wording of a policy idea on his website that's been up there for months, when just two weeks ago he did an interview where he made it clear that his ban would extend to emigration, and he's updated it so that it would likely be in terms of geographical area (determined based at least partly on muslim population and jihadist attacks - the later stated explicitly by Trump himself (the former is assumed by him saying "what's going on in gemany")

i.e. everything you've been arguing is absolutely irrelevant. it has completely nothing to do with reality, and it's a waste of time talking about it. it's like arguing about what kind of bait bass like when you're fishing on a crappie lake.

also, it makes this quote wrong



either i'm either dead blind or you're lying


no other post since then has even mentioned Trump's comments - you and small have just been going back and forth over what Trump probably misworded on his webpage.

yes, i know how a fallacy works (your fun explanation still helped plenty though!). pointing out the use of a fallacy in somebody else's argument and arguing thus that their argument is inherently false is something of an informal fallacy in itself.

but you didn't offer any other argument or substance, so you effectively dodged the issue entirely. in fact, you still haven't. your only argument thus far has been a rather nasty form of ad hom - i.e. discriminating against other people who've made unrelated (likely false/preposterous) comments and assuming this one also misconstrued because of it (without arguing the actual context and substance of the quote itself) and levying the ad hom you apply to them to this comment in the context of me bringing it up.

and so leads to the next quote...

yeah, that last bit was an honest mistake. i was having ptsd flashbacks of the time you kept up a strawman argument based on a miswording for like 5 pages of replies... so i gave you a bit too much credit this time, my b.

this actually makes it easier.

you maintain that the quote was misconstrued - you haven't argued that on the basis of the actual substance of the quote or context, just based on the fact that some people have made unrelated and likely false comments about Trump in the past, and thus the point i attempted to make using the quote was false. this, to me, looked like the beginning of that argument.

I make comment w (Trump's comments incite violence), which is very similar in meaning (not nuance or connotation) to comment x (Trump has put a hit out on Hillary).

You say that "the real situation is [you? them?] desperately grasping as straws..." and that the "same people who [make comment x (x ~= w)] also [make comment y] and [make comment z]. After 1000 such bullshit lines what am I expected to think"

in essence, you've dismissed my thoughts on comment 'w' based on people associated with making comment y and z.

in the sense that you ignore my argument, it is about me. and so I said, "You shouldn't expect anything, considering I've made neither of those comments" with the implication that your ad hom doesn't stand (regardless of it already being an ad hom, where it already cannot stand on its own)

this was further cemented by the fact that you conceded that you stooped straight to ad hom when you saw the comment i reference later in your post


this could be a genuine mistake on both our parts, but I'm really not convinced you're not just conveniently walking back some particularly toxic logic

you countered that you were fighting on the side of logic (fair, don't we all think so?) then pretended that's what I said (borderline strawman) and bashed the left (in the context of my opinion of them) for it (are you trying to make some sort of false dichotomy!!!!! Deflection!??!)

i just thought it was hilarious that you'd speak on such shaky ground after saying you were fighting on the side of logic, even though you were likely joking.

again, thanks for the laugh

hi, using the format you've given me:

1.) this is a strawman
2.) asserting that unaffiliated civilians who we don't have a great track record with (bombing hospitals, 200k civilians deaths in Iraq) (this is the basis of the sour relationship comment that you misconstrued) may be swayed to join terrorist organizations in order to fight "the enemy" if they are sent the clear message that "the US doesn't like you, and the US doesn't want you" (a muslim ban) is by no means equal to asserting that such an action would draw a line in the sand with preexisting terrorist militants that have a history of clearly being on one side of the line. as an aside, it's getting harder and harder to take you seriously here Mr. "I fight on the side of logic-even-when-I-choose-to-do-so-by-misrepresenting-other-peoples-arguments"
3.) although you choose to ignore it, people who have ambiguous feelings about the US will feel clearly outlined hostility from us on the basis of their religion, which may in turn create more jihadists (that does then pose a greater threat to us)

it's kinda ironic to accuse me of reframing the situation whilst reframing my argument, isn't it?

since i guess i need to be explicitly clear with you, your strawman is bs

"I believe that a strictly muslim travel ban is effectively useless with too many potential ways for organized terrorist groups to circumvent, so I don't believe it outweighs the risk of sending the message to the middle east that, "the US doesn't like you, and the US doesn't want you" as well as targeting genuinely driven and passionate immigrants who want to come to the US to live the American dream - undoubtedly a huge reason why our country has existed at the top of the ladder for so long"

=/=

"I believe we shouldn't screen people entering the United States!!!!!"

C'mon dude, it isn't even close. Try just a bit harder, alright?



i'm willing to say this isn't how it'd look if heads were really put together and people really thought about this, but you're totally out of your mind when you say this is a misrepresentation of Trump's strategy. Trump doesn't have a strategy on how he'll enforce a muslim travel ban.

that said, you know as well as I that the minor detail of asking one question wasn't the cornerstone of or even particularly relevant to my argument. to recap my points:

- A muslim travel ban would be:
**Inefficient in targeting suspected terrorists, the mere knowledge of a muslim travel ban dissuades terrorist organizations from sending documented muslims through. However, based on necessity, travel officers will be forced to continue to conduct operations like so: "ethnicity and country of origin would most likely be used as proxies." Making investigations irrelevant and out of date. Even if assuming all of that is false and only 5% of the infiltrators are white or of different ethnicity/country of origin than the people preoccupied fighting on the ground in Syria, those 5% are unlikely to be questioned at all (seeing as they don't 'appear' muslim - they aren't flagged on the basis of ethnicity or country of origin).
**Questioning "may be possible to lie your way out of." Rendering the entire ban useless even to people who are brought to awareness through their ethnicity and country of origin unless you have concrete documentation of somebody's religious affiliation.

here, lighten up and have a gif of a swinging crotch-head

-----

this is the biggest and most important if of the election


if (and only if) republican hotshot donors say "fuck Trump" and start trying to fund Johnson's campaign, there's a shot that he may perform well enough in the polls to enter the debates (the standards for getting into the debates are still very high - have a mathematically possible chance of winning in the electoral college and average 15% in 5 "deemed accurate" polls. if they decide to view third party polls as unaccurate then there's nothing you can do. i.e., another huge if). If he does well in the debates, some voters may be persuaded into "throwing away their vote" on him.

There's just so many possibilities and not enough data to say anything right now.