ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th February 2017, 11:42 PM   #361
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,019
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That black swan events are a much bigger issue with terrorism than with car crashes, and any attempt to equate them is stupid.
Bigger in what way?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2017, 11:42 PM   #362
Lurch
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That black swan events are a much bigger issue with terrorism than with car crashes, and any attempt to equate them is stupid.
I dunno about you, but the sight of a truck hurtling at me would qualify as a "black swan event." To which my poo-stained Fruit-of-the-Looms would eloquently attest when peeled back during the autopsy.

Are you saying that we accept the very real risk of death on the highways *because* such an event is not so random or unexpected? It is utterly inverted to fear more the more random, less likely event. That's a working definition of irrationality.

Yet in spite of the full and sure knowledge that X number of people, plus/minus some percentage, WILL be killed in their cars, life goes on and we bear the cost. The regulatory agencies and the auto makers undertake *reasonable* efforts to mitigate the toll without imposing undue inconvenience.

An equivalent to the Trump Ban here might be, say, ruling that those vehicle types driven by lower income earners are now prohibited from use. A more sensible prohibition--if you could call it that--would be to exclude the kinds of vehicle which feature most in fatalities. Or to raise the age limit for a driver's license.

But not for the Hair such a kind of reasoned or reasonable approach. Omit from the Ban those states which might have some teeth with which to fight back, or which have already produced/routed terrorists, or with whom he has business deals ongoing. Make a show of doing something, but which is far from balancing in effectiveness against the ruction and disruption caused. A lot of noise to no real good effect; indeed, probably leading to more harm to US interests in the long run.
Lurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2017, 11:45 PM   #363
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I see Trump's Ban as poorly thought out grandstanding intended solely to pander to his base. Showing them that he's doing exactly what he said he would. And appealing to the nascent--if not overt--discriminatory mindset.

In other Fora I see comments that are fairly rabid in their enthusiastic endorsement of the 'plain speaking' outsider doing it the way 'the people' want it done. I hope that lot truly are a tiny minority.

While the parallels are certainly not universal, by any means, this tactic does bring to mind Hitler's exploiting of the animus to the Jews. Imagine how much more traction Trump would have gotten if it wasn't 9/11/01, but instead 9/11/15.
Haven't you seen the recent polls from both the U.S. and E.U. showing majority support for "no more Muslims, please" ?

And why should this be a surprise? Who in their right mind would look at the terroristic attacks, and even these people on their "better behavior" with their Sharia squads, ghettos, beekeeper suits for their women, FGM, etc.,etc,etc.,... and NOT say "no more of those people, please" ???

You take relief from the fact that we have let the lesson of 9/11 slip from our immediate consciousness. That's a foolish thing to celebrate. A sane nation would have deported all Muslims 9/12/01 and completely barred any further immigration by them.

The only way to be in favor of Muslim immigration is to completely fail to understand birth rates and just how much ascendant vigor their culture has right now. They will dominate more and more of the world and doom more and more people to miserable lives until they are stopped by force. Expelled by force.

If it were up to me, we'd push them back and re-take Byzantium and the North African / Middle Eastern kingdoms they conquered long ago. In every case, the people they conquered were their betters.
__________________
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." - Thomas Jefferson
Reality is going to force you to become me.
Skeptic Tank is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 12:37 AM   #364
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,537
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I see Trump's Ban as poorly thought out grandstanding intended solely to pander to his base. Showing them that he's doing exactly what he said he would. And appealing to the nascent--if not overt--discriminatory mindset.

In other Fora I see comments that are fairly rabid in their enthusiastic endorsement of the 'plain speaking' outsider doing it the way 'the people' want it done. I hope that lot truly are a tiny minority.
I think that gets close to the heart of the problem with the travel ban.

Trump appears to get a significant amount of his information from people and places that promote conspiracy theories, paranoia, and bigotry. He said he saw thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey after that 2001 terrorist attacks and claimed there were no-go zones in Paris. This indicates that Trump perceives that the threat of radical Islamic terrorism within the U.S. as far greater than it actually is, and perceives that the threat is not being adequately addressed.

Trump also tends toward overly simplistic armchair solutions to difficult and complex problems: If you have a problem with illegal immigrants, send the illegal immigrants back and build and big wall so they canít come back in. If you have manufacturing plants moving to other countries where labor is cheaper, impose a tariff so that is no longer cheaper and they move back. If you have a problem with Muslims committing terrorist attacks in the country, ban Muslims from coming in.

So Trump perceives that there is a significant problem of terrorism by Muslims within the country, and comes up with the simple common-sense solution to that problem of banning Muslims from entering the country. That seems rather obvious and effective, and resonates well with the public.

But that solution has the obvious obstacle of being overtly discriminatory based on religion. So to figure out how to do it, Trumps brings in Giuliani, who brings in a team of lawyers. If I were a lawyer on Giulianiís team I would have done the same thing: tie the ban to 8 USC 1187(a)(12), which is law that prohibits a visa waiver for people from countries that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ďdetermines presents a high risk to the national security of the United StatesĒ. That separates the ban from religion and even disconnects it from countries distinguished by a dominate religion and even further bases the ban on people from countries identified as terrorist risks by a previous administration. Very solid footing.

The problem is that once the ban gets reduced to that solid legal foundation, it becomes obvious that the ban is not necessary. Its very foundation is in the laws that have proven to be effective in preventing terrorists from these countries.

Radical Islamic terrorism within the U.S. is a threat. A big one. Trumpís error is that he has misguided perceptions of the threat and misinformed information about how the threat is being addressed that result in him questioning policies and procedures that are already effective and forming simplistic solutions to problems that donít really exist while not directing attention to actual improvements to the safety and security of the nation from the threat of radical Islamic terrorism within the U.S.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 01:54 AM   #365
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,048
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Bigger in what way?
A nuke going off in a city?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 02:30 AM   #366
Lurch
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 37
I always advocate for perspective. That's why I raised the far more imminent prospect of death by vehicle or by relative than by foreign terrorist.

A list of causes of premature death would currently have the Jihadists rated pretty darn low. How much farther beyond the existing checks does it make sense to go in order to even further reduce an already small risk factor?

Many folks seem to have adopted the idea that just a single death by a terrorist is a calamity of existential proportions. Worthy of greatly disproportionate expenditure of effort and treasure to thwart. Seems like something of a winning strategy for the baddies; it plays into their hands when a 'great' nation is reduced to implementing incoherent policy borne of fear.

When I hear or read such extreme ideas as complete containment of Muslims, I cannot but hark back to the herding of Europe's Jews into the ghettos under the Nazis. The thinking process is scarcely different. The demonizing and the marginalization of the Others. They're all the same, and deserve the same fate, so the reasoning goes. How well did that turn out?

Unless the rest of humanity is committed to going one better than the Nazis, our best course is to *inspire* moderate thinking to take a wider hold in the Muslim world. This most youthful of the religions of the desert needs to undergo a reformation, and far better to help that along. Seemingly fascistic policy that marginalizes out of proportion to the realized gains is counterproductive.

I imagine some readers of this might be reflexively picturing their caricature of a liberal SJW pouring out his heart in comradely support of the oppressed. I also watch COPS, and enjoy novels featuring characters like Jack Ryan and Jack Reacher. I like to think I have some semblance of a balanced worldview that does not permit the fatal error of riding the pendulum too far left or right. Fair treatment for the good, justice for the bad. To put into the simplest and most concise terms even the so-called 'deplorables' can understand. Extreme views of any sort are just that; extreme. And that way lies destruction.

Balance. Proportion. Perspective. Watchwords to live by.
Lurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 02:57 AM   #367
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,048
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I always advocate for perspective. That's why I raised the far more imminent prospect of death by vehicle or by relative than by foreign terrorist.

[b]A list of causes of premature death would currently have the Jihadists rated pretty darn low. How much farther beyond the existing checks does it make sense to go in order to even further reduce an already small risk factor?[b/]

Many folks seem to have adopted the idea that just a single death by a terrorist is a calamity of existential proportions. Worthy of greatly disproportionate expenditure of effort and treasure to thwart. Seems like something of a winning strategy for the baddies; it plays into their hands when a 'great' nation is reduced to implementing incoherent policy borne of fear.

When I hear or read such extreme ideas as complete containment of Muslims, I cannot but hark back to the herding of Europe's Jews into the ghettos under the Nazis. The thinking process is scarcely different. The demonizing and the marginalization of the Others. They're all the same, and deserve the same fate, so the reasoning goes. How well did that turn out?

Unless the rest of humanity is committed to going one better than the Nazis, our best course is to *inspire* moderate thinking to take a wider hold in the Muslim world. This most youthful of the religions of the desert needs to undergo a reformation, and far better to help that along. Seemingly fascistic policy that marginalizes out of proportion to the realized gains is counterproductive.

I imagine some readers of this might be reflexively picturing their caricature of a liberal SJW pouring out his heart in comradely support of the oppressed. I also watch COPS, and enjoy novels featuring characters like Jack Ryan and Jack Reacher. I like to think I have some semblance of a balanced worldview that does not permit the fatal error of riding the pendulum too far left or right. Fair treatment for the good, justice for the bad. To put into the simplest and most concise terms even the so-called 'deplorables' can understand. Extreme views of any sort are just that; extreme. And that way lies destruction.

Balance. Proportion. Perspective. Watchwords to live by.
As Ziggurat pointed out, the problem is that terrorism does not necessarily follow trends like heart attack rates, or car accidents. Terrorists kill very few people except for the times when they kill very many people, like 2001. The existence of nuclear weapons and people who devote their lives to killing as many Americans as possible makes the threat of terrorism a unique one that demands a lot of resources and vigilance.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 03:05 AM   #368
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,159
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Do you, Squeegee Beckenheim, think that his EO was intended to ban muslims?
I think that the evidence indicates that what Trump set out to do was to introduce a ban on Muslims, but he was limited by what was actually legal.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 03:06 AM   #369
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,159
Originally Posted by logger View Post
I'll help you, he is talking about the Supreme Court. Trump constantly makes this mistake of NOT spelling things out in total for the left.
That's an interesting spin on "saying stupid things".
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 03:07 AM   #370
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,159
Originally Posted by logger View Post
You're of course wrong again, it is all about sides. Some just aren't honest enough to admit it, mate.
I'm not on any "side". I'm not even American and both US parties seem right-wing from my perspective.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 03:08 AM   #371
Lurch
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 37
Truly, the prospect of a nuke or the release of some nasty biological agent is the stuff of nightmares. But again, I invoke proportion. Even in the most wildly optimistic fantasies of hermetic sealing of the borders, determined actors will find a way. Look at such tightly controlled policed states as Nazi Germany. Spies and saboteurs could nonetheless operate. At some point it must be realized that the expenditure of resources will have long passed the point of diminishing returns.

Draconian measures might buy time, or they might hasten the dreaded calamity. Measured, well considered policy with realistic goals based on a realistic assessment of the state of affairs is ever the wiser course. Hastily implemented, knee-jerk policy borne of a misguided appreciation and tuned for political pandering is a potential disaster-in-waiting.

Is there a word which encapsulates the current White House by bringing together the erstwhile Antipodean nouns, horror and hilarity? Kind of in the manner of the Germanic Schadenfreude. I think much of the rest of the world is experiencing the unsettling, schizoid sensation of simultaneously wanting to recoil and chortle over the Machiavellis and Mooks that have slimed and stumbled their way to power.
Lurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 03:12 AM   #372
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,048
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Truly, the prospect of a nuke or the release of some nasty biological agent is the stuff of nightmares. But again, I invoke proportion. Even in the most wildly optimistic fantasies of hermetic sealing of the borders, determined actors will find a way. Look at such tightly controlled policed states as Nazi Germany. Spies and saboteurs could nonetheless operate. At some point it must be realized that the expenditure of resources will have long passed the point of diminishing returns.

Draconian measures might buy time, or they might hasten the dreaded calamity. Measured, well considered policy with realistic goals based on a realistic assessment of the state of affairs is ever the wiser course. Hastily implemented, knee-jerk policy borne of a misguided appreciation and tuned for political pandering is a potential disaster-in-waiting.

Is there a word which encapsulates the current White House by bringing together the erstwhile Antipodean nouns, horror and hilarity? Kind of in the manner of the Germanic Schadenfreude. I think much of the rest of the world is experiencing the unsettling, schizoid sensation of simultaneously wanting to recoil and chortle over the Machiavellis and Mooks that have slimed and stumbled their way to power.
On the continuum of doing nothing vs constant paranoia, there is some happy medium. I don't know what it is. I don't agree with Trump's ban. What we've been doing seems to have worked to keep terrorism a pretty rare and manageable thing. Trump is fear-mongering, but I certainly believe people from certain countries should be scrutinized more than others.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 03:12 AM   #373
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I think that the evidence indicates that what Trump set out to do was to introduce a ban on Muslims, but he was limited by what was actually legal.
Yes, it is reminiscent of poll taxes and civil knowledge tests that didn't ban (but actually did) black people from voting.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 03:13 AM   #374
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,159
Has anybody yet pointed out that Muslims account for a very small percentage of terrorist attacks within the US?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 03:26 AM   #375
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 75,702
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Getting back on thread, is the case going to SCOTUS?
And on what grounds will the government be given leave to appeal to the SCOTUS?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 05:13 AM   #376
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,532
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That's an interesting spin on "saying stupid things".
I'm sure it's stupid to people who can't understand simple things.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 05:15 AM   #377
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,532
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I'm not on any "side". I'm not even American and both US parties seem right-wing from my perspective.
Lol
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 05:16 AM   #378
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,532
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Yes plenty of leftists have.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 05:39 AM   #379
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,159
Originally Posted by logger View Post
I'm sure it's stupid to people who can't understand simple things.
Just to be clear - you're claiming it's an intelligent comment?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 05:40 AM   #380
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,159
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Lol
It's hard to know what kind of response you're expecting to that. The most sense I can make from your post is that you find it amusing that non-Americans exist. Which is a strange attitude, at best.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 05:41 AM   #381
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 15,159
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Yes plenty of leftists have.
Then I suppose the question is why haven't "rightists"? Do only people on the left wing of American politics care about what the actual sources of terrorism are?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 05:49 AM   #382
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,002
Originally Posted by logger View Post
You're stretching beyond reality. Why can't you just accept what it is? Fud has obviously proven it's not a Muslim ban by one simple question.
Because he hasn't. He axiomatically assumes to qualify it is a binary 100% or not condition and I don't think that is necessary. I don't even think it has to be a majority.

I keep giving an example of genocide because there was something from my reading on the subject that has always stuck with me. It was the observation how many genocides are only "in part" and function in a limited way.

Intent and effort matter.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 06:21 AM   #383
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,630
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why does everyone keep trying to make this the relevant standard? That doesn't actually make sense. The world isn't static. Future risk cannot be accurately estimated by simply projecting from past statistics.


Because past behaviour has shown to be a reasonably good method of assessing risk in other instances. This is why insurance companies track stats.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 06:28 AM   #384
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Because past behaviour has shown to be a reasonably good method of assessing risk in other instances. This is why insurance companies track stats.
This doesn't work with terrorists (only Muslims can be terrorists) because of reasons [/conservatism]
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 07:50 AM   #385
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 36,836
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Because past behaviour has shown to be a reasonably good method of assessing risk in other instances. This is why insurance companies track stats.
Terrorism isn't like car accidents. The stats don't behave the same way at all. We've already seen that with 9/11. Why does that confuse you?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 12th February 2017 at 07:59 AM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 08:05 AM   #386
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,019
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
A nuke going off in a city?
Is that the average result of every terror attack?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 08:17 AM   #387
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 8,729
The problem is, if you look at the terrorist attacks the U.S. has suffered, the ban would have in no way prevented them. In fact, as intelligence people have said, the type of lone wolf attacks we have seen may actually increase because of the ban and all the publicity it has created.

But I don't think any of that matters to Trump and many of his supporters. I don't really think the prime motivation for the ban is stopping terror attacks. I think it's all domestic politics aimed at the real hard core reactionary Trump supporters. And it's very simple. Muslims have done bad things in Europe and in the U.S. What can we do -- given our laws and ethics -- to do something bad to Muslims? That idea is enormously appealing to people of a certain mindset. Will it work? I don't think they care. I think most of them believe their chances of actually getting involved in a terror incident are so low they don't give it a thought. They get angry when they've seen these things on the news. I don't think their thought process goes much further than that.
newyorkguy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 08:43 AM   #388
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
The problem is, if you look at the terrorist attacks the U.S. has suffered, the ban would have in no way prevented them. In fact, as intelligence people have said, the type of lone wolf attacks we have seen may actually increase because of the ban and all the publicity it has created.

But I don't think any of that matters to Trump and many of his supporters. I don't really think the prime motivation for the ban is stopping terror attacks. I think it's all domestic politics aimed at the real hard core reactionary Trump supporters. And it's very simple. Muslims have done bad things in Europe and in the U.S. What can we do -- given our laws and ethics -- to do something bad to Muslims? That idea is enormously appealing to people of a certain mindset. Will it work? I don't think they care. I think most of them believe their chances of actually getting involved in a terror incident are so low they don't give it a thought. They get angry when they've seen these things on the news. I don't think their thought process goes much further than that.
Well, evidently your thought process doesn't go much further than that either.

The purpose of keeping high risk people out of the US is to improve our security in the future. It might not materially reduce the number of attacks in the next year or even the next five, but the risk can grow exponentially over time. You have people who do not fit comfortably into our culture or our society, who become disenchanted, who have connections to people back home who have links to extremists, or are extremists themselves, and they (the people in the US) become radicalized. By then, they are US citizens, who then have great flexibility in radicalizing their own friends and relatives who may be US citizens. This dynamic has happened two of the largest Somali communities in the US (one in Minneapolis, MN and one in Columbus, OH). Not only do they present grave risks themselves, but they are consuming vast law enforcement resources, which naturally results in other security risks being neglected.

Liberals here point to the fact that some of the recent terrorist suspects or perpetrators here have been 2nd generation immigrants or immigrants who came to the US as young children and essentially grew up as Americans. I guess this is supposed to mean that immigration controls won't help. My take away is the opposite. I find it more worrying. It means that our current vetting process is ineffective over the long haul and that we should probably only be looking at people who seem to have an affinity for our values and not just those who don't have demonstrable connections to extremists. If that means curtailing immigration down to a trickle from some of the most culturally backwards countries in the world, so be it.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 08:48 AM   #389
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Because past behaviour has shown to be a reasonably good method of assessing risk in other instances. This is why insurance companies track stats.
It's good in some areas of prediction, bad in others. In the case of terrorist risk, a much better predictor is the current state of the government. Six of the seven countries on the list are failed states, with a significant ISIS presence. That should trump everything. Frankly, I don't think Iran fits in with the other countries on the list, but Iran's government is our most implacable enemy, so as a punitive measure, the immigration ban makes sense. If I had my druthers, though, I'd take them off my list. Iranians, on average, are culturally compatible with the US and have a lot to offer us.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 09:10 AM   #390
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,019
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
It's good in some areas of prediction, bad in others. In the case of terrorist risk, a much better predictor is the current state of the government. Six of the seven countries on the list are failed states, with a significant ISIS presence. That should trump everything. Frankly, I don't think Iran fits in with the other countries on the list, but Iran's government is our most implacable enemy, so as a punitive measure, the immigration ban makes sense. If I had my druthers, though, I'd take them off my list. Iranians, on average, are culturally compatible with the US and have a lot to offer us.
How well would the state of their government have predicted 9/11, Boston Marathon or the Oklahoma City terror attacks?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 09:21 AM   #391
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,048
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Is that the average result of every terror attack?
Of course not, but it's a possibility and so terrible a possibility it has to be prevented at nearly all costs.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 09:36 AM   #392
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,984
Originally Posted by logger View Post
You're of course wrong again, it is all about sides. Some just aren't honest enough to admit it, mate.
Do you know anything about the psychological term "projection"? Just because it's all about sides TO YOU (an incredibly stupid position to take) doesn't mean it's all about sides to everybody else.

some of are actually worried about the outcome for everybody.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 10:19 AM   #393
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 28,251
It is about sides. It is a silly EO, but it is constitutionally acceptable. The "checks and balances" reviewability are limited to Congress changing the law, and The People changing the president at the next election.

People pick their outcome then reason backwards to support it. We just finished 8 years of this, and now the shoe is on the other foot, and all rats switch sides drooling like dogs attuned to heraldry of filet mignon.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 10:25 AM   #394
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 8,729
This is a current meme with the reactionary right, that we should only admit immigrants who "can prove" they share our values, want to be culturally "like us" and are ready to be assimilated. I don't think there's anything in Trump's executive order about that, was there?

Of course besides the fact only admitting immigrants who are assimilation-ready might be difficult for immigration agents to determine -- and some pretty smart people say it's probably not a good idea anyway -- we've been there.

One hundred years ago reactionaries were objecting to the wave of Italian immigrants, and others from southern Europe, for the same reasons. They're not like us, they're not ready or willing to assimilate. Seventy years ago it was the Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Europe. They weren't like us, they weren't ready to assimilate.
newyorkguy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 10:25 AM   #395
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
How well would the state of their government have predicted 9/11, Boston Marathon or the Oklahoma City terror attacks?
Well, you're cherry picking of course, which is not the way to go about analyzing the effectiveness of a predictive factor. But in the case of 9/11, it actually would have helped. The origin of the plot was al Qaeda in Afghanistan. If we had looked for links to Afghanistan, it's possible that the plot would have been disrupted.

I find your mention of the Oklahoma City bombing to be tendentious and silly. There's not much we can do about keeping US citizens out of the country. Also, there are 320 million of them now. The fact that the only comparable example of terrorism committed by 2nd generation or greater Americans happened almost 22 years ago, sort of makes the opposite point of what you are trying to make.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 10:29 AM   #396
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
This is a current meme with the reactionary right, that we should only admit immigrants who "can prove" they share our values, want to be culturally "like us" and are ready to be assimilated. I don't think there's anything in Trump's executive order about that, was there?

Of course besides the fact only admitting immigrants who are assimilation-ready might be difficult for immigration agents to determine -- and some pretty smart people say it's probably not a good idea anyway -- we've been there.

One hundred years ago reactionaries were objecting to the wave of Italian immigrants, and others from southern Europe, for the same reasons. They're not like us, they're not ready or willing to assimilate. Seventy years ago it was the Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Europe. They weren't like us, they weren't ready to assimilate.
But in the case of Italian and Jewish immigrants, such detractors turned out to be wrong. We have already run the experiment, and there are great numbers of people we have taken in the last 30 years who have not assimilated particularly well. The Somali community is a good example. So is the fact that the terrorist threat from Muslim immigrants and visitors from the countries in question, as well as other countries of other Muslim-majority countries of the Middle East, is relatively very high. This is true in France, Germany, and the UK, as well as in the US.

I don't think any good will come out of sticking one's head in the sand like an ostrich.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 10:29 AM   #397
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,002
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Well, evidently your thought process doesn't go much further than that either.

The purpose of keeping high risk people out of the US is to improve our security in the future. It might not materially reduce the number of attacks in the next year or even the next five, but the risk can grow exponentially over time. You have people who do not fit comfortably into our culture or our society, who become disenchanted, who have connections to people back home who have links to extremists, or are extremists themselves, and they (the people in the US) become radicalized. By then, they are US citizens, who then have great flexibility in radicalizing their own friends and relatives who may be US citizens. This dynamic has happened two of the largest Somali communities in the US (one in Minneapolis, MN and one in Columbus, OH). Not only do they present grave risks themselves, but they are consuming vast law enforcement resources, which naturally results in other security risks being neglected.

Liberals here point to the fact that some of the recent terrorist suspects or perpetrators here have been 2nd generation immigrants or immigrants who came to the US as young children and essentially grew up as Americans. I guess this is supposed to mean that immigration controls won't help. My take away is the opposite. I find it more worrying. It means that our current vetting process is ineffective over the long haul and that we should probably only be looking at people who seem to have an affinity for our values and not just those who don't have demonstrable connections to extremists. If that means curtailing immigration down to a trickle from some of the most culturally backwards countries in the world, so be it.
The level of violence from first generation Americans seems proportional to the degree of US interference in the old world. I think that is a good sign to change our dumb values.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 10:37 AM   #398
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The level of violence from first generation Americans seems proportional to the degree of US interference in the old world. I think that is a good sign to change our dumb values.
I disagree. I realize this is a common view among a certain large segment of libertarians, but I am confident that it's completely and utterly wrong. People become disenchanted about their own personal situation first (e.g. being unemployed or feeling inadequate or not fitting in in other ways), and then look to outside factors for a scapegoat and a purpose. It doesn't happen the other way around. You're not going to get a guy who's top of his class with a good future becoming radicalized because the US drone-bombed a wedding in Pakistan.

Another point is that the US will get blamed by malcontents no matter what we do. If we intervene, we get blamed for intervening. If we don't intervene, we get blamed for not intervening, or perhaps for intervening through proxies or in secret or something. It is impossible to separate ourselves from the rest of the world, either in practice or in the minds of conspiracy theorists. Malcontents will always find a pretext for hating on the most successful and powerful country in the world.
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 10:39 AM   #399
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,002
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I disagree. I realize this is a common view among a certain large segment of libertarians, but I am confident that it's completely and utterly wrong. People become disenchanted about their own personal situation first (e.g. being unemployed or feeling inadequate or not fitting in in other ways), and then look to outside factors for a scapegoat and a purpose. It doesn't happen the other way around. You're not going to get a guy who's top of his class with a good future becoming radicalized because the US drone-bombed a wedding in Pakistan.

Another point is that the US will get blamed by malcontents no matter what we do. If we intervene, we get blamed for intervening. If we don't intervene, we get blamed for not intervening, or perhaps for intervening through proxies or in secret or something. It is impossible to separate ourselves from the rest of the world, either in practice or in the minds of conspiracy theorists. Malcontents will always find a pretext for hating on the most successful and powerful country in the world.
It seems only North American countries have this problem of getting blamed for non interference. South American countries do not. Maybe it is because the US hasn't yet tried actually not interfering.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2017, 10:55 AM   #400
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,418
Thankfully the southern border is 100 percent secure and terrorists can't get in that way.

ETA: I know I should link this to the court thing. I think it was smart of Bannon or whoever to go with the list left over from Obama days. At the beginning the Trump administration said many more countries would be added; later it said more countries wouldn't be added. If Iran was on the list as a "punitive" measure it undermines the contention that the list is all about safety, but if it was on Obama's list that's some cover.

I don't know if Trump's previous statements will be admissible in the Supreme Court, but I doubt it.

It would really make Trump's head explode if the SC refused to hear the case.

Last edited by Minoosh; 12th February 2017 at 11:06 AM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.