The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

Michael 345 said:
What about multiple wives?
Click to expand...

If all are willing and satisfied, why should a polyamorous relationship be prohibited. Now, obviously, forced relationships are bad news, but we already have problems with that (spousal abuse et al)
 
Fake video and you should be ashamed of yourself!

The first difference I see to what this guy has said is that the people migrating to the USA are "fleeing" the very mentality he complains about.

It little wonder that the remaining people in Iraq, the ones who are happy beheading people if they have a grievance rather than making use of and enforcing the rule of law or human rights etc are not the people fleeing from such?

You see Michael, the reasons behind a person leaving behind everything, spending sometimes years in camps are not trivial and all you have shown with the video is precisely why they take such hardship and risks to leave those persons who practice such barbaric acts behind.
I had a asylum seeker tenant a few years ago from Iran standing shirtless at my sink washing dishes. I asked him about all the scars on his back, a lattice work of deep lash marks covering his entire back from top of shoulder to base of spine... he looked at me a said...ahh a car accident.... ( he refused to worship Allah -he refused to pray prone as is the custom)

So he fled Iran and traveled by boat to Malaysia and then on to Australia with just the clothes hiding his scars and nothing else. He asked for asylum so he could find a future away from the car accidents and Australia granted it to him.

Do you think he is a threat to you... why?

your video statement is utter garbage... sorry to say so.. but utter rot...most likely entirely fake as well...

Surely it may not be too long before Australia is taking USA refugees attempting to escape morons like the guy in the video. Perhaps you may even be among them...
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
Nope. That's a delusion. And it's irrelevant, btw - why are you bringing it up?
There is still some affirmative action, in some places - hardly relevant here. Why did you mention it?
So you see no security difference between religious sects that actually commit many acts of terrorism against the US, and those that do not? Between travelers from functioning States with normal documentation and refugees from war zones?
Click to expand...

It's called intersectional feminism. Look it up.
Apparently you forgot denying minority preference, hence the example of affirmative action.
A "functioning State with normal documentation" relies upon our confidence in that state for our trust of the documentation. No confidence in the veracity of the vetting makes them roughly equivalent.
States tend to wage war in lieu of terrorism, hence the nuclear ambitions. War tends to be many magnitudes more devastating, and states tend to do preparatory work by seeding sleeper-cells, collecting intel, etc..

billvon said:
Nope.

No. The fact that they, in fact, engage in fewer terrorist attacks against us makes them less of a threat.

Who is more of a threat to you? The guy who yells at you that he's going to "deal with you" if your dog pees on his lawn again, or the gang on the corner who has mugged you twice already?
Click to expand...

It's called intersectional feminism. Look it up.
Hope your faith in the lack of terrorist attacks from a particular country results in a continued lack of such attacks, no remote recruiting of domestic attacks, no arming of terrorists, and no future designs on war. Or maybe the past doesn't strictly curtail the possibilities for future threats, i.e. the ones we seek to avoid.
The greatest threat is the guy who yells he's going to "deal with you" and has the money to arm the gang in a proxy war. As long as the money's there, he can always find a new gang.
 
A state funded terrorist cell would not use legitimate passports/visas etc. Entry to the USA could be via any country. The only solution to this fear would be to close all international travel.
They could even enter the states as Trump Brand employees from the UK
 
Tiassa said:
The reason people call it a Muslim ban is, as I pointed out, the Trump administration. Now, your bit about a "Jewish ban" is exactly the problem; Mr. Giuliani made it clear what is going on. And when you described the term "Muslim ban" as "this straw man of an ethnic/religion ban".

You called it a "straw man".

There's your "no reason".

Look, Syne, this isn't exactly the most difficult of sciences. I don't know if you really think you're fooling anyone, but the problem with the proposition that what you're putting on is somehow genuine is that it's really, really rude to describe you in such lowly terms. That is to say, do you really think people are so stupid, or is it possible the problem has something to do with the low bar you set for such comparison―i.e., How stupid do you need people to be in order that you might feel smarter than them?

Because, really, taking the explanation for why it's a Muslim ban and slapping a new label on it to say it's why the term "Muslim ban" is a "straw man" is pretty damn stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm not surprised you can't manage to follow straight forward, critical reasoning. Why wouldn't a "Muslim Ban" include ALL Muslim majority countries? Do we just like those Muslims more? o_O No, it's because the countries under the moratorium are either highly unstable, overtly hostile to the US/West, and/or we cannot establish a good faith working relationship with which to confidently vet immigrants/refugees. And we happen to have good diplomatic relations with the other Islamic countries. Islam is only correlated to the moratorium, by way of being a majority in these troublesome countries. But it is these troubles in vetting that are the actual cause. But we all know the problem many on this supposed science forum have with conflating correlation with cause. :rolleyes:

Hence, "Muslim Ban" is a straw man that purports to attribute cause, even though the facts, e.g. that not all Muslim countries have been included, run contrary to that naive oversimplification. Just because it overwhelmingly affects Muslims in overwhelmingly Muslim countries is rather trivial. And that we may wish to show preference to those easier to vet is also rather trivial.
 
Michael 345 said:
Because it is against the law
Click to expand...

That does not answer the question... why should it be against the law. Name a single reason (outside of religious ones) for it to be illegal or otherwise prohibited.

Syne said:
Why wouldn't a "Muslim Ban" include ALL Muslim majority countries?
Click to expand...

Unsurprising that you are, yet again, trolling instead of engaging in good faith.

The answer is as obvious as your attitude - Trump has business in those countries. That is why he exempted the ones that have, in fact, sent more terrorists to the US than the ones he DID ban combined!
 
Quantum Quack said:
A state funded terrorist cell would not use legitimate passports/visas etc. Entry to the USA could be via any country. The only solution to this fear would be to close all international travel.
They could even enter the states as Trump Brand employees from the UK
Click to expand...

So you're claiming all these refugees have "legitimate passports/visas etc."? No self respecting State would possibly take advantage of a unprecedented opportunity to seed an enemy state with operatives, right? :rolleyes:
 
Syne said:
Yes, I'm not surprised you can't manage to follow straight forward, critical reasoning. Why wouldn't a "Muslim Ban" include ALL Muslim majority countries? Do we just like those Muslims more? o_O No, it's because the countries under the moratorium are either highly unstable, overtly hostile to the US/West, and/or we cannot establish a good faith working relationship with which to confidently vet immigrants/refugees. And we happen to have good diplomatic relations with the other Islamic countries. Islam is only correlated to the moratorium, by way of being a majority in these troublesome countries. But it is these troubles in vetting that are the actual cause. But we all know the problem many on this supposed science forum have with conflating correlation with cause. :rolleyes:

Hence, "Muslim Ban" is a straw man that purports to attribute cause, even though the facts, e.g. that not all Muslim countries have been included, run contrary to that naive oversimplification. Just because it overwhelmingly affects Muslims in overwhelmingly Muslim countries is rather trivial. And that we may wish to show preference to those easier to vet is also rather trivial.
Click to expand...
Terrorism is the strawman!
 
Kittamaru said:
Unsurprising that you are, yet again, trolling instead of engaging in good faith.

The answer is as obvious as your attitude - Trump has business in those countries. That is why he exempted the ones that have, in fact, sent more terrorists to the US than the ones he DID ban combined!
Click to expand...
Really? So the fact that we have good diplomatic relations with those countries, even going back to Obama's administration, has nothing to do with security concerns? Sure, buddy. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:
 
Quantum Quack said:
Yes, I'm not surprised you can't manage to follow straight forward, critical reasoning. Why wouldn't a "Muslim Ban" include ALL Muslim majority countries? Do we just like those Muslims more? o_O No, it's because the countries under the moratorium are either highly unstable, overtly hostile to the US/West, and/or we cannot establish a good faith working relationship with which to confidently vet immigrants/refugees. And we happen to have good diplomatic relations with the other Islamic countries. Islam is only correlated to the moratorium, by way of being a majority in these troublesome countries. But it is these troubles in vetting that are the actual cause. But we all know the problem many on this supposed science forum have with conflating correlation with cause. :rolleyes:

Hence, "Muslim Ban" is a straw man that purports to attribute cause, even though the facts, e.g. that not all Muslim countries have been included, run contrary to that naive oversimplification. Just because it overwhelmingly affects Muslims in overwhelmingly Muslim countries is rather trivial. And that we may wish to show preference to those easier to vet is also rather trivial.
Click to expand...
Terrorism is the strawman!
Click to expand...

Where in that post did I mention terrorism? o_O:rolleyes:
 
Syne said:
So you're claiming all these refugees have "legitimate passports/visas etc."? No self respecting State would possibly take advantage of a unprecedented opportunity to seed an enemy state with operatives, right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
During the confusion of Trumps illegal until proven otherwise travel ban, how many terrorists snuck in from France? Or Germany? Or Australia?
Do you know that any one regardless of racial identity can convert to Islam?
Are you that silly not to know how futile Trumps ban is?
 
Syne said:
Yes, I'm not surprised you can't manage to follow straight forward, critical reasoning. Why wouldn't a "Muslim Ban" include ALL Muslim majority countries? Do we just like those Muslims more? o_O No, it's because the countries under the moratorium are either highly unstable, overtly hostile to the US/West, and/or we cannot establish a good faith working relationship with which to confidently vet immigrants/refugees. And we happen to have good diplomatic relations with the other Islamic countries. Islam is only correlated to the moratorium, by way of being a majority in these troublesome countries. But it is these troubles in vetting that are the actual cause. But we all know the problem many on this supposed science forum have with conflating correlation with cause. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you say that.

Because the countries you claim you have good diplomatic relations with are actually the countries that produced terrorists that attacked the US directly. And yet, they are not on the list. Instead, the list includes countries that have not produced terrorists that have attacked the US.

How, exactly, does this make sense?

Syne said:
Hence, "Muslim Ban" is a straw man that purports to attribute cause, even though the facts, e.g. that not all Muslim countries have been included, run contrary to that naive oversimplification. And that we may wish to show preference to those easier to vet is also rather trivial.
Click to expand...
Not all Muslim countries have been included because Trump has business interests in many of those Muslim countries.

The very Muslim countries that produced terrorists that attacked the US are not included on the list, but those who have not attacked the US are included on the list. Perhaps you should address that fact a bit more carefully.
 
Syne said:
The difference is that I argued my point, while you've only proclaimed yours. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
no you didn't. You keep avoiding the argument.. like you are doing now...

Terrorism is provably the strawman and the travel ban is the outcome.

There is no evidence to support the strawman therefore the ban... except paranoid speculations and fear based predictions with out any real founding.
If you have a girlfriend perhaps ask her if she has converted to Islam lately? or perhaps the guys you drink with down the bar?
How would you know that they hadn't or had?
 
Kittamaru said:
That does not answer the question... why should it be against the law. Name a single reason (outside of religious ones) for it to be illegal or otherwise prohibited.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't

but it currently is

I don't have a single reason

If those who want multiple wives and / or husband's change the law

So the question was answered under the current prevailing conditions
 
Syne said:
A "functioning State with normal documentation" relies upon our confidence in that state for our trust of the documentation.
Click to expand...
Hence the term "functioning" and the term "normal".

Immigrants from Iran meet none of the criteria you posted as supporting the ban. Immigrants from Saudi Arabia meet almost all of them. Refugees from war zones, including refugees we created and have moral obligations toward, cannot avoid meeting them.

So the ban makes no sense, on your criteria.
Syne said:
It's called intersectional feminism. Look it up.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever denied you could find a name for your irrelevant delusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top