If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

So what makes an unskilled ___istani immigrant the dregs of the earth, but not an unskilled, unemployed 20th generation Anglo guy?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I always notice it's an "I" and never a "we" when it comes to the welfare argument.

 

[arg]

They are both dregs of the earth, but we can't do anything about the white guy already here unfortunately. However, we have the choice to let in the foreign guy to whom we have no obligation and we shouldn't. 2 worthless mouths to feed is worse than 1 (though I think we shouldn't help either)

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Ok, I agree with that, I just don't see a reason to actively protect unskilled/menial laborers when we should be encouraging them to either work harder or work smarter. I mean, I'm not 100% free trade, there are definitely examples where foreign influence doesn't really benefit anyone except foreigners. Chinese real estate investment in Vancouver is an infamous example; I don't see any reason to allow foreign billionaires to speculate using valuable real estate that could and would be used by Canadians to live in. Some degree of protection is important to make sure we can be self-sufficient in case the world goes to shit. For example, we don't want to import all of our food and suddenly have our trading partners become out enemies; it makes sense to protect industries that are critical for a nation's security and health. If Paco can pick fruit twice as well as John, though, I don't have a problem with Paco doing the work instead.

 

[EternalMetal]

Damn, I literally have like 5 people to respond to. Honestly I'll just link everyone here.

@EternalMetal It's a strawman argument to say it's simply "Islamic terrorist" attack too. I'm over politicians offering "their prayers and good vibes" like that's any help whatsoever. Politicians need to offer policies/ideas/ways to prevent situations like this from occurring and not happen every 3-6 months. Don't tell me nothing about building a wall, or anything dumb that my 8th graders can come up with. The fact of the matter is assault rifles cause way more damage than a regular handgun. If you look at statistics on shootings where the gunman used assault rifles way more people died and or were injured.

Ill be politically impartial by saying that every politician I mentioned provided what they thought was an idea to prevent these types of attacks. Obama/Hillary seem to agree with you, the idea that guns are the problem and need to be further regulated. I acknowledge that increasing regulations on assault weapons and other types of non-hunting guns is a very reasonable idea since it will make it harder (albeit not impossible) for "lone-wolf" type killers to acquire guns that are more effective in a shooting. You may decrease the carnage of such shootings by doing so, but I dont think this would prevent any act of terror from happening. People who want to kill others for any reason will end up acquiring a gun and committing the deed. Trump judged this incident to be an act of terrorism, and thinks that we should crack down on allowing dangerous individuals to set up home in our country. The effectiveness of such actions is actually debatable, though at the very least it acknowledges that we have problems with Islamic terrorists that are killing in the name of a currently ongoing war. It would only have prevented this recent shooting if this policy were implemented before this guy was even born (his father had ties to terrorist organizations, and therefore would not have been allowed into our country). Deporting immigrants with ties to terrorism is thus a good idea in a perfect world, but the very implementation of such policies may provoke a short term increase in attacks (I think this is what many anti-Trump people are worried about). In the long run this will result in the deportation/denial of immigration of potentially dangerous individuals. Terrorists will still leak through the cracks, but just like gun control, it will be harder for such individuals to organize an attack.

I honestly dont have a solution to mass shootings, whether they are terrorist attacks or not. If people want to kill, they will. Bombs, guns, or hell even poison, there are many ways that someone could kill a decent number of people. I think that I would be equally outraged at this incident if the killer was only able to gun down 10 people with a handgun. Mateen failed in his desire to obtain armor (increasing his chance of death), yet still engaged in the attack anyways. Regardless of what you may think of my opinion, I still do not approve of the idea of civilians being able to legally obtain military-oriented rifles or guns, but I will not delude myself in thinking that a ban on such weapons would actually stop shootings from happening to innocent people.

The main kicker with this incident is that during the shooting the guy calls 911 and says that he is doing this in the name of ISIS. Whether he had directive orders or not, this incident already has associations with Islamic terror. I will not claim that this was Mateen's dominating motivation, but effectively it would be no different if it was. I would be more open-minded to the idea of this attack not involving Islam if the shooter didnt specifically say it was (is this too obvious to have to point out?)

@Dak and @HamburgerBoy okay so you've mentioned or showed the same people on this forum known to have more liberal views calling the Planned Parenthood shooting Christian terrorism. So? Doesn't really change the fact that the ones who are quick to jump on the Islamophobia bandwagon here (or arguably anywhere not just users here) are quite bias when it comes to shooters being more stereotypical American. My point wasn't necessarily a critique on the users here (I already know where most of them stand) but in general how bias and hypocritical people are.

I know this wasnt directed towards me, but put me down as another 'religion promotes hate and discrimination' type. If a random white American male were to call 911 and say he was shooting people because of Christianity, I would be just as quick to label him a terrorist. Except there isnt currently a huge global terrorist organization that is terrorizing people on a daily basis in the name of Christian ideals. There is a global context to current events.

Also, anyone can commit any crime and say "it's an act of terror" by throwing whatever affiliated group's name in the mix without affiliation. Honestly, I'm not saying it wasn't religion driven (according to the gunman), but my comment was moreso the Islamophobia that came as a result of this guy even though he was not affiliated with ISIS. There's a lot of evidence to sway that he himself might have been homosexual and self-hating too. Reports of his ex-wife states he was "bipolar" "not very religious" and "abusive." However, you yourself stated that mentally disturbed individuals are a common denominator (which I agree with) in these mass shootings, but the fact that they are able to purchase assault rifles without anybody looking into their pyschosocial where they can kill literally 100s of people at once is not a problem, right? Okay.

For one, there were psych evaluations performed on this guy in numerous instances. Id agree with you on that point if it werent blatantly incorrect. That said, if some random white guy shoots up a gay club while going 'yee-haww, KKK for life!', he would be doing a service to the KKK regardless of direct affiliation. Most people in America nowadays would call this guy a stupid ass Nazi redneck and move on, but if the KKK still had the pull that they did in the 20s, this would still be classified as a terrorist attack that was related to the movement. Shooters are fucking insane, why are you trying to delineate his motives in a way that exonerates him from religious affiliation? Just like my KKK scenario, this guy was obviously influenced by Islamic-based extremism in some way or another.

 

[Dak]

I always notice it's an "I" and never a "we" when it comes to the welfare argument.

Actually it is a we when someone is arguing for it. "I don't want to pay" but "we need to pay"....and that's a we that doesn't include I.

 

[Dak]

https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

Public Unaware that Homicide Rates Have Fallen

As Pew has reported in recent years, in fact, the American public is "unaware" that the homicide rate in the United States has fallen by 49 percent over the past twenty years. And while Pew doesn't report on it, it's also a safe bet that the public is also unaware that homicide rates have collapsed as total gun ownership in the United States has increased significantly.

Over a recent 20 year period, the number of new guns in the US that were either manufactured in the US or imported into the US increased 141 percent from 6.6 million new guns in 1994 to 16 million in 2013. That means a gross total of 132 million new guns were added into the US population over that time period.

Of course manufactured/imported doesn't mean purchased, but we don't have a gun inventory glut either. There's this chart:

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/washpost01op.png

and this:

 

[CiG]

Well yeah by all means dislike them as much as any other bigot, but just as you wouldn't assume every Christian hates the gay's, don't assume every Muslim does. Also keep in mind that trolls abound online.

We probably just can't see eye to eye. I'm not an aggressive hater of religious folk like some people are.

I do assume that of most Christians, after all Islam is just a rip off of Judaism and Christianity. The gays are fucked every which way when it comes to religion.

Also, fuck your use of the term bigot. It doesn't apply, unless you're talking about the homophobic religious extremists.

 

[CiG]

I'm noticing that whenever someone makes some defense of Islam, they use "but you wouldn't [insert] the Christians" lines like they think everybody they see criticising Islam is some white nationalist Christian or something. I don't give a single fuck about Christianity, that's a weak ass gotcha moment tactic.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

They're just slow to adapt. Religious American conservatism has been going downhill for a while now, but people don't realize that many of them (or at least their grandchildren) are shifting towards libertarianism and atheism.

 

[Einherjar86]

The KKK were based in America and existed in various forms for 151 years, vs 17 years, according to wikipedia, for ISIS/ISIL. If you looked at a total death toll from Islamic conquests and attacks on "christendom" and I suspect you'd find one from Bill Warner, it would far outweigh the KKK's death toll.

The entire number of killings related to the Southern culture of honour, in America, is only in the thousands, over hundreds of years. Thousands of people get killed in single years over honour in Pakistan.

And Islam itself has been around since the sixth or seventh century C.E. Why is ISIS an Islamic problem, but the KKK isn't a Christian problem?

You also make it sound as though the systematic murdering and raping of blacks in America over centuries is somehow less awful than what ISIS is doing. Both are terror groups, and both are products fanatical warpings of religious organization, not the logical ends of those religions.

Religion in itself is not a logical enterprise. It changes over the years, and its principles can change. Many Muslims know this, just as many Christians do too.

Pretty sure Orlando is hardly a breeding ground of homophobia. Has there ever been a case previously where a deeply repressed homosexual went on a rampage and started killing his own? If there's no real precedent of that kind of repression leading to that kind of violence, then I don't see why mental health or parental upbringing aren't more relevant.

I hope I didn't suggest that mental health is irrelevant. All I'm trying to say is that queer sexuality does not go hand in hand with mental illness. There are plenty of queer people who get along just fine, and in many cases what we identify as mental instability is a result of societal exclusion (and I'm using "exclusion" in a very general sense).

My point was that it's potentially dangerous to link queer sexuality to mental issues caused by genetic or other biological factors. I wasn't accusing anyone here of doing so - simply admitting the wariness I have toward the dime-store psychologizing that happens over the media.

However, my main point is that there is no reason to take in even the ones who are not terrorists.

I agree on both, but we have different criteria. I'm all for welcoming Indian brain surgeons and Chinese rocket scientists. But NOT the dregs of the earth and taking care of them at my expense.

Immigration won't prevent terrorism. The Orlando and San Bernardino attacks were carried out by American-born citizens.

As far as your economic concerns go, immigrants contribute significantly to the economy. We've heard that lots of them will perform jobs that Americans won't; but many also start their own small businesses, and those aren't necessarily brain surgeons or rocket scientists.

I'm noticing that whenever someone makes some defense of Islam, they use "but you wouldn't [insert] the Christians" lines like they think everybody they see criticising Islam is some white nationalist Christian or something. I don't give a single fuck about Christianity, that's a weak ass gotcha moment tactic.

I'm not sure exactly what arguments you're referring to; but I wouldn't call many of the examples I've seen "defenses" of Islam. I would call them critiques of arguments against Islam. In other words, when certain people make illogical statements about the dangers of Islam, others will cite Christianity as a religion that, if we accept the premises, poses as much of a threat. This isn't a defense of Islam, but an attempt to thwart faulty logic.

 

[The Ozzman]

KKK isn't a Christian problem?

They aren't shooting up night clubs or blowing up buildings. They may be a problem, but they are non-violent these days.

 

[Einherjar86]

They aren't shooting up night clubs or blowing up buildings. They may be a problem, but they are non-violent these days.

That has nothing to do with the logic of the argument. I'm saying is that if the central problem of ISIS is Islam, then it would also make sense to identify the central problem of the KKK as Christianity. And if that was the case, then that would have to mean that Christianity is still a primarily violent and destructive religion. All I'm saying is that it's an equivocation.

The point is that in the entire histories of Christianity and Islam, the KKK and ISIS are young and recent developments. Neither are some teleological endpoint of either religion - they're fanatical outgrowths.

 

[Satanstoenail]

The ban on Muslims from terrorist countries is reasonable. I'd make exceptions for some if they have amazing verifiable credentials. For those already here, the legal productive ones have nothing to worry about. Those with terrorist ties, even if they haven't done anything yet, should be deported. Those who get mad should be jailed/deported.

It's how it is, but it doesn't have to be. The government -chooses- to grant amnesty and benefits to illegals. It -chooses- to put refugees in planes and dump them in American towns without permission. This does not benefit us. We need a government that will say no to these (Trump...or the Aussies).

We can still withdraw from their lands and blow them up of they come to us instead. Maybe leave enough forces to defend the oil but that's it. Leave the Muslims killing Muslims to their own devices, who gives a shit.

I like how there's absolutely no thought whatsoever to the ramifications of all the deporting and blowing up of other countries. It seems to be the way with all the Trumpeters. "He's gonna bring fire and show those pesky Muslims what's what and build a WALL! Who needs forethought.

 

[CiG]

I'm not sure exactly what arguments you're referring to; but I wouldn't call many of the examples I've seen "defenses" of Islam. I would call them critiques of arguments against Islam. In other words, when certain people make illogical statements about the dangers of Islam, others will cite Christianity as a religion that, if we accept the premises, poses as much of a threat. This isn't a defense of Islam, but an attempt to thwart faulty logic.

It is a defense, but anyway the premise you offer as an example doesn't make sense since Christianity and Islam are at very different places in their development. Christianity used to be as much of a threat.

 

[arg]

As far as your economic concerns go, immigrants contribute significantly to the economy. We've heard that lots of them will perform jobs that Americans won't; but many also start their own small businesses, and those aren't necessarily brain surgeons or rocket scientists.

we have 8 million unemployed

let's say we bring in 1 million immigrants

let's say (just for example) 400k immigrants get jobs

lefty: "40% of immigrants got jobs, it's good!"

wrong!

we now have 8.6 million unemployed!

if those 400k jobs went to americans, we'd have 7.6 million unemployed. 1 whole million less taxpayer burdens!

i'm sure you can find 400k hardworking, willing-to-do-shitty-jobs US citizens among the 8 million; people are desperate enough these days

 

[Einherjar86]

It is a defense, but anyway the premise you offer as an example doesn't make sense since Christianity and Islam are at very different places in their development. Christianity used to be as much of a threat.

I'm trying to be as clear as possible here.

When someone brings up Christianity in an argument about the threat and/or violence of Islam by saying "Well Christianity etc. etc.", that person is commenting on the logical consistency of the argument - in other words, if you say this about Islam then you also have to say it about Christianity. If it is a defense of Islam, then it's equally a defense of Christianity!

Historical development doesn't matter in this specific case because it has nothing to do with the historical circumstances of either religion. If we use ISIS as evidence for Islam's inherent violence, then we can also use the KKK as evidence for Christianity's inherent violence. And if the primary concern is inherent violence, then it doesn't matter whether or not the KKK is currently lynching people or not. The connection between the religion and violence has already been made, meaning that it's equally a threat whether it's carrying out violent acts or lying dormant.

In this respect, it has nothing to do with defending Islam since the logic of the argument defends Christianity just as much.

we have 8 million unemployed

let's say we bring in 1 million immigrants

let say (just for example, it's highly unlikely) 400k immigrants get jobs

lefty: "40% of immigrants got jobs, it's good!"

wrong!

we now have 8.6 million unemployed!

if those 400k jobs went to americans, we'd have 7.6 million unemployed. 1 whole million less taxpayer burdens!

i'm sure you can find 400k hardworking, willing-to-do-shitty-jobs US citizens among the 8 million; people are desperate enough these days

The illegal immigrant population makes up less than five percent (I believe) of the national population. Of that percentage, over half of them hold jobs, meaning they're aren't filing for unemployment. In fact, the unemployment rate is probably higher among legal citizens. I don't think our economy's problems derive primarily from illegal (or legal) immigration.

 

[SentinelSlain]

So what makes an unskilled ___istani immigrant the dregs of the earth, but not an unskilled, unemployed 20th generation Anglo guy?

how about

average IQ

genetic propensity for unspoken trust

 

[EternalMetal]

I'm trying to be as clear as possible here.

When someone brings up Christianity in an argument about the threat and/or violence of Islam by saying "Well Christianity etc. etc.", that person is commenting on the logical consistency of the argument - in other words, if you say this about Islam then you also have to say it about Christianity. If it is a defense of Islam, then it's equally a defense of Christianity!

Historical development doesn't matter in this specific case because it has nothing to do with the historical circumstances of either religion. If we use ISIS as evidence for Islam's inherent violence, then we can also use the KKK as evidence for Christianity's inherent violence. And if the primary concern is inherent violence, then it doesn't matter whether or not the KKK is currently lynching people or not. The connection between the religion and violence has already been made, meaning that it's equally a threat whether it's carrying out violent acts or lying dormant.

In this respect, it has nothing to do with defending Islam since the logic of the argument defends Christianity just as much.

What you speak of is an ideal. The current reality is that Islamic extremism is a current, real threat. Just like Christianity, I believe that Islam will eventually became a stable religion, but at the moment it is subject to a very real and influential terrorist faction. The religion of Islam is at odds with itself, and therefore is a very unstable religion at this current point in history. The difference with the 'reformation' of Christianity is that as a country, the US could not avoid facing it head on. Muslims are not currently a majority in the US; the fight is centered around the middle east. We should not feel obligated to open the flood-gates and allow this war any more traction on US soil. This is not Islamaphobia, this is the recognition of a violent threat that most people here want no part of. Facilitating peace in the middle east is a valiant endeavor, but when it involves subjecting our country to a palpable threat, it becomes unacceptable.

 

[arg]

The illegal immigrant population makes up less than five percent (I believe) of the national population. Of that percentage, over half of them hold jobs, meaning they're aren't filing for unemployment. In fact, the unemployment rate is probably higher among legal citizens. I don't think our economy's problems derive primarily from illegal (or legal) immigration.

- "the illegal immigrant problem is just x% of our economic problems therefore we shouldn't solve it"
- WEAK

- "more than half of illegals have jobs so they're not a huge problem"
- if NONE of them were here AT ALL, they would NOT BE A PROBLEM at all

- it costs PLENTY http://www.fairus.org/publications/...llegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

- and it's not just welfare costs, but government program costs for them, and the money their jobs make that should have rightfully gone to legal citizens, that they send to mexico