Originally Posted by wibblefox
I just did say why lol
"You're wrong because some other people who aren't you have made other arguments that are wrong. Checkmate!"
Later in your post you literally admit your argument was ad hom... you really got me!
How much do you have to hold your nose while typing out this utter bullshit.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
You must identify very strongly with the left since you just claimed to be entirely the left lol
How many times did you have to be dropped on your head to have such terrible amnesia?? I made comment x and you immediately assumed that I made comment y and z (because I made comment x); YOU were the one who generalized me along with the entire left, I just pointed it out.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make here. Are you trying to make a false dichotomy? Are you implying that it's fien for the left to bullshit because the right does too? Is this just some reflex you have to spew out strawmen at the first sign of opposition?
I was actually just pulling a bit of a goof. There's no need for me to actually make arguments against you when you full on admit you're incapable of talking about this without using ad homs.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
I don't align myself with the right lol, but funny that you should think that anyone who calls out the left on their bullshit must be right. It sure insulates you from ever having to deal with reality doesn't it?
Your policy positions speak otherwise, so it does show a bit of hypocrisy on your part if you recoil against the left for spewing bullshit but sit comfortably on the right amonst a pile of crap. I don't need to be told that's a fallacy, I was making a joke.[/QUOTE]
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Again I don't know how this argument is supposed to function. False dichotomy? "They are just as bad as us!"? Deflection?
No, I'm saying your argument is stupid because stupidity is the norm everywhere. Trying to highlight a specific group for lack of generic "rationality" when they're just as utterly irrational as everyone else is useless and dumb.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
............ what am I even reading.
Firstly, being a UK national is not mutually exclusive to being a Muslim......... And he sure as hell didn't immigrate from the UK to the UK, so it's completely irrelevant........
Secondly, blocking ALL travel is ridiculous. You have a very specific problem you want to counter (ISIS) and you happen to know a feature that all of their terrorists attackers share (Muslim, immigrating from the middle east warzones) or converted muslim, immigrating from France, UK, US. You would have to be stupid to tell Mr Mochizuki "sorry but we are concerned about ISIS infiltrators so no you can't visit from Kyoto"...
Sorry but that is just silly. It's like saying "we want to stop people growing marijuana therefore we have banned all plants".well, you tried And whats more you are doing this only to avoid appearing bigoted! Truly this is an example of political correctness gone too far when someone ironically argues that blocking all travel is better so as not to appear racist!try again, pc has nothing to do with it. anything half assed will not be effective - whoever runs the house at ISIS will just say let's send operative y(convertee recruited from UK) instead of x(born muslim from middle east). like I said (and you conveniently ignored) classifying ISIS operatives as ONLY middleeastern born arab muslims instead of potentially also convertees from all over the world and all kinds of ethnicities is misleading
The fact of the matter is that ISIS is made up primarily of middle eastern Arab Muslims. It's not racist to state facts.
nobody is disputting that ISIS is primarily middle eastern arabs lmfao, but those don't have to be the ones coming to the US to perform acts of terror. It's already most likely they'll send UK, France nationals you wouldn't even be able to identify since they blend in far better, banning the people fighting on the ground in Syria is ridiculously useless!
Originally Posted by wibblefox
To be specific he is talking about ISIS infiltrators which are by and large middle eastern Arab Muslims.
thanks for avoiding addressing my point
the only way to identify a muslim is to ask "hey are you a muslim" and you can only go off what they say. If Ingrid amd Sven walking through the line at an airport and are ISIS operatives and they're following Muhammad who isn't even Muslim (he's a converted Christian) then the only one questioned will be Muhummad. It's childish how dumb a halfassed proposal would be. The only surefire measure is a closed borders policy.
That said, I don't actually support a closed borders policy in this case. The fearmongering from the right is just that - fearmongering. We should be supporting groups like the kurds on the ground in the middle east as to allow the natives of the middle east reclaim their homes for themselves, but we don't need to be on the ground and we don't need such a misleading, ineffective, and bigoted ban.
am on mobile and written on and off over the course of like half a day, sorry for potentially jumping around/lack of organization
Originally Posted by wibblefox
as we have shown above.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Although as above we have determined it is way more than 1%.
Wanna get at this now since it'll be useful later
You actually haven't proven anything... I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you extrapolating such a narrow analysis (looking at events that don't exist under or show a contrast between situations where there are and aren't muslim bans) doesn't show you that under circumstances of a well known ban that you'd stop a majority of attacks.
You might remember my little scenario from my last post.
Big macho honcho ISIS big boss man: "Damn, the Americans really did enact that muslim ban. Oh well, send operative y instead of operative x on one of the next flights, he should still be able to pull it off."
We know for a fact that ISIS has recruited and/or converted all kinds of different ethnicities and nationalities - other than those who would traditionally/stereotypically be labeled as muslim: i.e. the ones who would be questioned in airports following a muslim ban, assuming the TSA doesn't have time to extensively question every single passenger flying in the US (even if they did, all said operative needs to do is say, "No, I'm not a muslim" and make them believe it... it's a system of beliefs, you can only take someone at their word whether they hold it). They would easily be able to circumvent a muslim ban and commit whatever act of terror they so choose wherever they please. In the end, it comes down to good domestic investigation and police work. A muslim ban just wouldn't help anything.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Pure speculation with no basis in reality, completely dishonest and illogical.
There is no reason to believe that the native would have performed the attack without the immigrant.
And yet we have already determined that his policy would have saved lives and stopped attacks in other countries. This is not "nothing".
Pure speculation with no basis in reality, completely dishonest and illogical.
There is no reason to believe that the native would not have performed the attack without the immigrant.
FBI analysis indicates that he had a profile more resembling that of a standard massshooter than a terrrorist, but the Orlando shooter was one guy. He pretty easily orchestrated a terrible tragedy. Your talk about "this couldn't happen with one guy" is utter bollocks.
I understand you're talking about a single situation (where the charge of baseless speculation applies in every hypothetical), but you obviously mean to extrapolate your conclusion to all incidents. So yeah, utter bollocks
Originally Posted by wibblefox
This is a complete non-argument that is purely speculation. The statement clearly says "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". If you want to ignore the official source and base your argument purely on your own opinion, then go for it, but don't expect me to try and argue with your opinion, that would be a pointless endeavour.
It is relevant because your original quote was "His original plan was to stop muslims entering and leaving altogether". This is not correct on three counts because:
1. He never planed to stop all Muslims (only Muslim immigration) (which you conceded in your above post)
2. He never planed to stop emigration (which you already conceded above)
3. You neglect to mention that the ban is only a temporary measure until a lasting solution is devised.
In the original statement you can will find all 3 of these points substantiated. My highlights clearly show you where you can find evidence of point 3. This is the last point of contention.
It is 100% crystal clear from the article, so I don't want to keep reiterating this point. Please graciously concede these points so we can move forward.
Oh man... you even brought out the numbered list. Jesus Christ dude, you look so professional but you're so wrong that I actually genuinely feel sad. Check out his comments after the shooting in San Bernardino, you'll find everything you've said here and all the semantics you've argued to be completely irrelevant.
Somewhere around 11:30, I'll quote him for you
Originally Posted by Donald's Exact Words
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on! (We have no choice! We have no choice! We have no choice...)
This IS his original statement, he's very clear about it being a total and complete shutdown (not just settling/immigration).
In a relatively recent interview with Chuck Todd, he stated that he believes he's expanded the ban.
Todd: The muslim ban... I think you've pulled back from it, but you tell me... (clip) this feels like a slight rollback. Should we interpret it like that?
Trump: I don't think so, I don't think this feels like a rollback, it feels like an expansion. I'm looking now at territories. People were so upset that I used the word muslim, oh you can't use the the word muslim. Remember this - and I'm okay with it since we're talking territory instead of muslim... we're making it territorial. We have nations, and we'll come out, I'm going to be coming out in the next few weeks with a number of the places, and it's very complex, because we have problems in Germany, and we have problems in France...
The next bit is more of a short conversation and this is getting tedious, so just go to about 7:21 and listen for yourself.
. . .
you might conveniently note that the words travel and emigration are used, so.... I don't know what to tell you. Two weeks ago, Trump's own comments on bans on travel and emigration.
i.e. Trump has not only expanded his ban to banning TRAVEL, ENTERING THE COUNTRY, COMPLETE AND TOTAL SHUTDOWN of muslims into the US, but also countries that have been 'contaminated' by populations of muslims/acts of terror.
"Until our representatives can figure out what is going on" is so ambiguous that the acceptance of any policy with that as the cutoff point would be grossly irresponsible. No surprise you don't have issue with it.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Right, because it's reasonable to explain something you literally just explained because someone couldn't be bothered to read it last time.
It's also very reasonable to expect - at the very least - a quote of this phantom explanation. Unless you mean to tell me your explanation was your statement I was wrong. You wouldn't fall into the trap of circular arguing, would you?
Although that is my bad then, I guess I didn't sum up your entire argument while I was mocking you.
"You're wrong, I claim that the real situation is you lying about the situation. Also, you're wrong because some other people who aren't you have made other arguments that are wrong. Checkmate!"
Originally Posted by wibblefox
lol not true.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
when you started harping on about how Trump is calling for Hillary to be killed I jump right to ad hominem...
*cough*
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Just because you don't realise the implications of your statements, doesn't mean I don't.
You're not reinterpreting the single use of a pronoun, are you? If you can perform that kind of mental gymnastics with a single pronoun, it's a wonder you rail against what you would likely call mental gymnastics on my part.
No, by "we" I did not mean as to identify myself as the entirety of the left. Even had I, that remark was specifically an aside to my actual comment calling out your obvious bullshit.
Sorry you were confused by that, it seems that happens often huh
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Funny to see you label anyone fighting on the side of logic as "right", just how little do you think of the left... Nice attempt at dismissal.
the irony of this literally had me doubled over. my sides might still hurt tomorrow. there's nothing i can even say about this lmfao, it totally speaks for itself
"I am a hero of logic and justice! I fight my battles with ad hominem and strawmen!"
EDIT: hey dude do you make those professionally, because with all this talk about deporting all the illegal immigrants it might be useful to have a couple of your expertly crafted strawmen tending our fields in lieu of the mysteriously absent workers we will have used to have
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Um, ok lol
kek
Originally Posted by wibblefox
Again false dichotomy, a partial solution is better than no solution...
I think you are being ridiculous constantly pushing this "all or nothing" agenda. If you stop even 1% of deaths then that is something.
This is incredibly naive, and your crying wolf over a false dichotomy just shows that you know it is.
When you talk about banning all muslims from entering the US, you run the pretty certain risk of sending a very clear message to muslims that "We don't like you, and we don't want you here" (since that's more or less what we're saying). Gosh, just imagine how Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. would spin that sentiment in their recruiting. A ban like that draws lines on the sand on an already sour relationship (bombing hospitals doesn't tend to send the message of "We're here to help!")
in this case, you have a likely small positive effect (a muslim ban is easily circumvented by saying, "I'm not a muslim") and run a huge risk of feeding to extremist hate groups propaganda for the recruitment reels.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
So you are advocating racism... I'm sure that's a goof/joke though.
What's the real joke is your sad attempt at reinterpreting those comments in such an obviously false way.
Last edited by pouffy; Aug 14, 2016 at 09:46 AM.
Originally Posted by wibblefox
There is no reason to believe that the native would have performed the attack without the immigrant.
I would argue that there is proof that they are radicalized since they took part in the attack. Which suggests there was a high chance of them performing the attack anyway, however what reason is there to believe they would not have performed any attack - its safe to assume the details of the attack would have been different but I dont think its safe to assume that no attack at all would have happened.
And yet we have already determined that his policy would have saved lives and stopped attacks in other countries. This is not "nothing".
Had it been implemented in the European countries we were talking about refuge would have been denied and threatened the lives of asylum seekers, and I dont see how it would not have raised the death toll in these countries by more than it would have lowered it.
Arguable, Turkey itself (not to mention the majority of Europe) does not agree with your views. Or are you saying this in light of the defacto Islam status that Turkey has recently acquired?
Turkey's instability obviously does not help.
What do you see a Western country? Most things Ive seen view Turkey as not part of the Western world but attempting to join it.
However im sure we can both agree that in its current state it is definitely unstable and in a position where it is more akin to Syria and Iraq than the UK and Spain in terms of susceptibility to terrorist attacks.
On this point http://www.ssb.no/en/innvandring-og-...ere/nokkeltall in the section "Immigration, emigration and net-migration, by world region" Statistics Norway uses these categories
Given which countries are where I find it safe to assume that they use the top classification as the western world, Turkey does not fit in the category used, this is how I view what fits into the Western World - if you disagree that thats what the category is then can you explain why those countries are grouped together?
Whether Turkey is a Western country is largely irrelevant to the topic of discussion though so its probably better to carry on with this part of the discussion through PM rather than on this thread
This is a complete non-argument that is purely speculation. The statement clearly says "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". If you want to ignore the official source and base your argument purely on your own opinion, then go for it, but don't expect me to try and argue with your opinion, that would be a pointless endeavour.
Imposing strict rules on one demographic for an undetermined period of time definitely seems off.
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.
I guess that ^^ is the point Ive been trying to get across all along.
I removed the rest of your post because I think those parts of your post weren't really making a particular argument, and you wanted to end those parts of our discussion because it was turning into yes it is - no it isnt - yes it is-no it isnt, if you disagree and think anything I missed off was particularly important quote it again and I'll reply to it next post.
Last edited by SmallBowl; Aug 14, 2016 at 02:08 PM.
Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.
My question to add to this debate is: Does Gary Johnson make it to the debate stage?
Trump continues is polling down from PR nightmare after PR nightmare, mostly from the left wing media. You'd think many people on the right would be reluctant to endorse Hillary and yet many outspoken Bush cabinet members are now going for Hillary, so does that mean the libertarians have a shot at taking some votes away from both super parties?
Trump continues is polling down from PR nightmare after PR nightmare, mostly from the left wing media. You'd think many people on the right would be reluctant to endorse Hillary and yet many outspoken Bush cabinet members are now going for Hillary, so does that mean the libertarians have a shot at taking some votes away from both super parties?
Need help?
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Originally Posted by wibblefox
I think it's an assumption to assume the attack would have happened.
Well done! Assumptions are indeed assumptions!
Arguable, but at some point a country has to say "the lives of our citizens are more important than the lives of outsiders".
All countries do this to some extent, the question is where to draw the line, which is 100% debatable.
How many outsiders lives is 1 citizen worth? 10? 100? 100000?
In terms of numbers of asylum seekers lives put at risk by this compared with the number of citizens killed by terrorist activity that could have been stopped, this proposal if enacted across Europe (I believe the number of refugees pledged to be accepted was around 75,000 - without counting any undocumented migrants, the total number of fatalities due to terrorist activity in Europe from these migrants is around 200, counting the Paris and Brussels attacks as the attackers came back in by hiding among refugees.) Then the ratio would be seen as about 1 citizen : 100 refugees, obviously approximated as I dont know what proportion of the refugees would have managed to survive despite not being able to take refuge.
Now, I do agree that as a country you do have to take the value of your own citizens as more than outsiders, but these kinds of numbers seem far too extreme to me to the point where I would see this as amoral, do you not agree? How many refugees would you find it acceptable to allow to die in order for 1 citizen to survive?
I don't think it's my job to define western country, if most western countries including the country itself consider it to be western, that's really enough for me.
And yes, unstable.
You only answered half the question, why?
The rest of the question was;
Is Turkey in a position where it is more akin to Syria and Iraq than the UK and Spain in terms of susceptibility to terrorist attacks?
Nah I don't really think Norway is the sole authority on what is and isn't western..................... And I don't think there is any possible argument to support that theory.
(EDIT: Well Turkey is being negotiated for both EEA and EU, and if you use that as your definition then Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and Switzerland are NOT western, a position that surely even you will admit is incorrect.)
Can you please show me where in my post I said Norway was the sole authority on what is and isn't Western? This was simply a something I found that used classifications where one of them was Western and this is what it defined Western as.
What? Turkey is negotiating to join the EU yes - I havent seen anything about them joining the EEA though, could you link me???
Originally Posted by BBC
A country has to adopt and enforce all the current EU rules before it can be admitted to the bloc. EU rules are divided into 35 policy areas and in 10 years Turkey only managed to adopt the rules on one: science and research. In most other areas it has not even made a start.
Originally Posted by BBC
the European Commission has said no new country will join within the next five years.
Given the document was about immigrants and immigration do you not think the reason Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Switzerland (with their combined population of 8.2 million ~ 1/8th the population of the UK) were not given exceptions is that the immigration from those countries was negligible when compared to the rest of the data??
That does not justify you saying "He does want to stop muslim immigration altogether." You have no proof of this other than "seems off"?
Is this a prank?
We have established that his proposal was to stop muslim immigration altogether for an undetermined period of time. The article about immigration was very blatant in that no muslims were going to be able to immigrate.
Just because you think something is wrong is not a license to put words in other people's mouths. Just because it "seems off" or it's "negative discrimination" does not change the policy. Don't confuse your opinion of the policy with your interpretation of the policy.
No, that wasnt an interpretation of the policy, the policy did not differentiate between muslims from different areas of the world or at different levels of risk.
Interpreting the policy in my own way would be to add that in, I did not, you did. It is not putting any words into his mouth to use his exact words, the article was very clear and we were agreed on what it meant. 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.
Dont confuse this policy with the policy he later made in the place of this one.
Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.
