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 10th February 2017, 07:37 PM   #281
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,803
Originally Posted by logger View Post
I wonder if these judges are thinking about what they've just done?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com
Well, we know what The Conservative Tree House thinks. "Arrrrrrggghhhh! Brown people! Run! They're coming to eat our brains!!"

So, let's see.... the sister-in-law of the San Bernardino shooter got hitched in a green-card-marriage. Gee, that never happens.

And Trump's order would have stopped this, how? You do realize (or did the Oswego Patriot not cover that) that those people are not from one of the seven countries, right?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 10th February 2017, 08:00 PM   #282
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I agree with this, but I would add one thing. It would be appropriate to give Christians special treatment. The Chaldean and Assyrian communities are being destroyed. "Christian" in this case is not just a religious choice, it's an ethnicity. The Mandaeans have more or less ceased to exist. The Yazidis have fled.

It's ok to give preferential treatment to persecuted minorities. They really are persecuted.
Yes of course. Discriminating based on religion but for a secular purpose does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. The US has done it many times in the past, usually for the purpose of giving preference to persecuted groups.

I think it would even be ok to discriminate against Muslims in immigration because of the heightened terrorist threat. That would not be discriminating against Muslims qua Muslims, but rather Muslimness as a risk factor in terrorism. I don't think that would be a wise thing to do, but I also don't think it would run against the Establishment clause. Similarly, I think Trump's call for a temporary ban on Muslims during the campaign was ill-considered, but it was not rooted in a desire to "hurt" Muslims, as the plaintiffs in the case put it.

One last point is that I think it's completely inappropriate for the court to consider anything said or done by Trump prior to his being elected President (and perhaps prior to his becoming President) in trying to ferret out the purpose or rationale behind a particular executive order. The Presidency is an entity, in itself, that is distinct from the candidate or the person who eventually became President. Whatever candidate Trump's musings or slogans uttered during the campaign were, they are irrelevant to an executive order that could not even have begun to be formulated prior to his assembly of a transition team.
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 10th February 2017, 08:04 PM   #283
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,567
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Yes of course. Discriminating based on religion but for a secular purpose does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. The US has done it many times in the past, usually for the purpose of giving preference to persecuted groups.

I think it would even be ok to discriminate against Muslims in immigration because of the heightened terrorist threat. That would not be discriminating against Muslims qua Muslims, but rather Muslimness as a risk factor in terrorism. I don't think that would be a wise thing to do, but I also don't think it would run against the Establishment clause. Similarly, I think Trump's call for a temporary ban on Muslims during the campaign was ill-considered, but it was not rooted in a desire to "hurt" Muslims, as the plaintiffs in the case put it.

One last point is that I think it's completely inappropriate for the court to consider anything said or done by Trump prior to his being elected President (and perhaps prior to his becoming President) in trying to ferret out the purpose or rationale behind a particular executive order. The Presidency is an entity, in itself, that is distinct from the candidate or the person who eventually became President. Whatever candidate Trump's musings or slogans uttered during the campaign were, they are irrelevant to an executive order that could not even have begun to be formulated prior to his assembly of a transition team.
What a lot of double talk to mask bigotry and make excuses for incompetence.
Have fun Worshipping Dear Leader though.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 10th February 2017, 08:11 PM   #284
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,381
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I agree with this, but I would add one thing. It would be appropriate to give Christians special treatment. The Chaldean and Assyrian communities are being destroyed. "Christian" in this case is not just a religious choice, it's an ethnicity. The Mandaeans have more or less ceased to exist. The Yazidis have fled.

It's ok to give preferential treatment to persecuted minorities. They really are persecuted.
How many persecuted minority Muslims would you include in this humanitarian morality of yours?

Persecution of minority Muslim groups
Skeptic Ginger 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 10th February 2017, 08:19 PM   #285
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,825
[quote=sunmaster14;11712363
One last point is that I think it's completely inappropriate for the court to consider anything said or done by Trump prior to his being elected President (and perhaps prior to his becoming President) in trying to ferret out the purpose or rationale behind a particular executive order.[/QUOTE]

In a vacuum I would agree. But it corroborates statements made after inauguration to help complete the picture (thank you Rudy Giuliani). I think that is okay.
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 10th February 2017, 08:29 PM   #286
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
What a lot of double talk to mask bigotry and make excuses for incompetence.
Have fun Worshipping Dear Leader though.
Yawn. Yet another muddled, ignorant and uncivil post. Wake me when you write something interesting.
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 10th February 2017, 08:31 PM   #287
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
In a vacuum I would agree. But it corroborates statements made after inauguration to help complete the picture (thank you Rudy Giuliani). I think that is okay.
But Giuliani was (I think) referring to stuff done while Trump was still a candidate. Many months before the election, Trump's "muslim ban" had morphed into a ban on immigration from countries where terrorism was a serious problem.
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 10th February 2017, 08:43 PM   #288
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,825
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
But Giuliani was (I think) referring to stuff done while Trump was still a candidate. Many months before the election, Trump's "muslim ban" had morphed into a ban on immigration from countries where terrorism was a serious problem.
Did it morph into a terrorism countries ban? NPR had a good analogy today. Certain policies like stop and frisk are not explicitly an anti black policy. Also, most black people won't be affected by it. It is still an anti black policy.
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 10th February 2017, 11:36 PM   #289
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I agree with this, but I would add one thing. It would be appropriate to give Christians special treatment. The Chaldean and Assyrian communities are being destroyed. "Christian" in this case is not just a religious choice, it's an ethnicity. The Mandaeans have more or less ceased to exist. The Yazidis have fled.

It's ok to give preferential treatment to persecuted minorities. They really are persecuted.
Christian communities are largely in the Assad coalition, so they have stable, conflict-free parts of the country to flee to. They also have little to no presence in refugee camps (or at least camps with U.N. or NGO presence to assist them in starting the process of resettling in other countries). Christians are also one of the largest Syrian 'diaspora' populations (Syrian people living outside of Syria) and given the colonial history, are more likely to attempt resettlement with relatives in Europe who can sponsor them. There has never been an overt effort to deny Christians entry or prioritize Muslims.
Delphic Oracle 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, 01:08 AM   #290
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,565
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Well, we know what The Conservative Tree House thinks. "Arrrrrrggghhhh! Brown people! Run! They're coming to eat our brains!!"

So, let's see.... the sister-in-law of the San Bernardino shooter got hitched in a green-card-marriage. Gee, that never happens.

And Trump's order would have stopped this, how? You do realize (or did the Oswego Patriot not cover that) that those people are not from one of the seven countries, right?
Once again you seem to be the only one bringing up skin color. Color me surprised.
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 11th February 2017, 01:21 AM   #291
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,483
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I agree with this, but I would add one thing. It would be appropriate to give Christians special treatment. The Chaldean and Assyrian communities are being destroyed. "Christian" in this case is not just a religious choice, it's an ethnicity. The Mandaeans have more or less ceased to exist. The Yazidis have fled.

It's ok to give preferential treatment to persecuted minorities. They really are persecuted.

As are the Shia.

Aside from Iran, Iraq, and the nearly microscopic countries Azerbaijan and Bahrain, they are a minority in every Muslim majority country in the world, and a persecuted minority in most (if not all) of those.

Does Trump's EO give preferential treatment to Shia Muslims over Sunni?

Do you think it should?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta 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, 01:22 AM   #292
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,872
Originally Posted by logger View Post
No, the term snowflake was coined to explain the loser lib college "children" who needed their safe space. Trump is just giving it back to the losers who go after him.
Does it rankle because more people now demand special snowflake status rather than it being something only the sons of rich parents can demand?
__________________
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 11th February 2017, 01:24 AM   #293
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,872
Originally Posted by logger View Post
A shot across his bow?
The courts have decided to take on national security, deciding who should be allowed in or out, something the president has sole discretion on.

This is just liberals legislating from the bench. Another reason why they cannot be compromised with, they have to be defeated.
No the courts have dealt with cases brought in front of them. Which is their constitutional job.
__________________
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 11th February 2017, 02:57 AM   #294
Lurch
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 188
As a Canadian I admit to great ignorance here.

Regarding EOs; is it not a requirement that some demonstrable *reason* be given as justification? Or is it indeed the the case that unfettered power has been accorded POTUS to unilaterally make law on his/her say-so alone?

If the latter, that's the operational definition of a dictatorship. Surely at least the *spirit* of the Constitution on this matter does not permit such?


And why the brouhaha over the threat of terrorist incursion under an existing system of apparently pretty rigorous vetting? (Not perfect, of course, for no construct of Man's can ever be.) Each year Americans slaughter themselves by gunfire alone at the rate of some ten 9/11s per year. Terrorism has quite lterally a bloody long way to go before even catching up to that.

People sometimes disgust me for their tendency to cinch up the blinders in an almost willful desire to block out the wider picture, thus losing all sense of proportion and perspective. It's all fine and dandy to blithely accept the better part of 100 citizen-made gunshot bodies passing through morques every day, but God forbid!! should some godless foreigner with malice in *his* heart slay a single BIble thumping American.

And just the prospect of that dreadful foreign-made calamity, even if the probability is small, is seen as justification for a great upheaval for millions of individuals, 99.896% (certified Lurch statistics ) of whom pose no real threat.

Now, I DO NOT in any way whatsoever advocate waiting until some biblical-level poostorm of attacks materialize before tightening things further. BUT! Undertaking such a significant step as a full travel ban, without notice, affecting existing green card holders, and for only countries from which not a single previous attacker against America has originated, is surely allowing the pendulum to swing to far in the opposite direction.

Perspective. Objectivity. Common sense. These admirable and restraining qualities appear to have no place in the current WH administration.
Lurch 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, 03:40 AM   #295
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,247
It seems quite clear that President Trump has full authority under the law to place any limitations on immigration he feels like placing, for whatever duration he pleases (at least until his successor is in place and nullifies them) and to offer or not offer whatever justifications for it that he may wish to.

The statute everyone has been quoting seems to clearly empower him to even outright say "no Muslims" and I think this court ruling should simply be ignored. They have no standing on this matter and therefore should be completely disregarded.

Personally, I wish Trump would just halt all immigration for as long as he can and then nobody could whine about it being discriminatory, though I prefer that it be discriminatory.
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 11th February 2017, 03:57 AM   #296
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,803
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
It seems quite clear that President Trump has full authority under the law to place any limitations on immigration he feels like placing, for whatever duration he pleases (at least until his successor is in place and nullifies them) and to offer or not offer whatever justifications for it that he may wish to.

The statute everyone has been quoting seems to clearly empower him to even outright say "no Muslims" and I think this court ruling should simply be ignored. They have no standing on this matter and therefore should be completely disregarded.

Personally, I wish Trump would just halt all immigration for as long as he can and then nobody could whine about it being discriminatory, though I prefer that it be discriminatory.
And I truly hope Trump takes your advice. He'll turn two Supreme Court justices into moderates.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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, 04:00 AM   #297
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,363
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Not "somebody" your side in general. Your sides political ideology isn't based in fact, it is based on emotion.
It's not all about sides, mate. We're all individuals with incompatible values and beliefs. We fall on "sides" of certain issues, but that's about it.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon 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, 04:07 AM   #298
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'
Posts: 13,249
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
It seems quite clear that President Trump has full authority under the law to place any limitations on immigration he feels like placing, for whatever duration he pleases (at least until his successor is in place and nullifies them) and to offer or not offer whatever justifications for it that he may wish to.

The statute everyone has been quoting seems to clearly empower him to even outright say "no Muslims" and I think this court ruling should simply be ignored. They have no standing on this matter and therefore should be completely disregarded.
.
Others here feel the same way. I personally am struggling to get my head round how two courts presided over by life long experts in the law can arrive at a conclusion that seems so obviously wrong to those with no direct professional experience in constitutional legal matters
Lothian 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, 09:06 AM   #299
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Did it morph into a terrorism countries ban? NPR had a good analogy today. Certain policies like stop and frisk are not explicitly an anti black policy. Also, most black people won't be affected by it. It is still an anti black policy.
That's not a good analogy. For starters, the level of judicial scrutiny that applies is much greater. Some judges consider the fact that stop and frisk has disparate impact sufficient to declare its unconstitutionality.

In any case, I was referring to a subtler point which is that the comments made by the person who is now President, before he became President, are irrelevant. This is because the Presidency is an institution, not just a human being. It comes with all of the "baggage" of office, including the advice of the entire executive branch bureaucracy, as well as any relevant classified information which bears on national security.

Not least of all, whatever Trump said before he became President was also said before he took the oath of office in which he pledges to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws. If we expect Trump to take that oath seriously, the courts should treat the pre-oath Trump as a different entity from the post-oath Trump.
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 11th February 2017, 09:13 AM   #300
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
By the way, there has been an interesting development in the case at the 9th circuit court of appeals. An unnamed judge has made a sua sponte request for a rehearing en banc. Sua sponte means that the judge has made a motion on his own initiative, i.e. without a request from either party. To say that this is pretty damn unusual would be an understatement.

Anyway, the parties are supposed to brief the issue of whether or not a rehearing en banc should happen. My guess is that both sides will oppose it, although that doesn't mean the rehearing won't happen. My understanding is that Trump is rewriting the executive order anyway, so that it is judicially impregnable.

My guess is also that the sua sponte request was made because one of the judges on the 9th circuit felt that the issue of standing for the State of Washington was decided incorrectly. I think it was a totally bogus ruling, and that it can create a lot of mischief going forward. If a state can have standing just by virtue of some incidental effects on one of its state funded universities, then there is very little that is off the table for the state government, standing-wise.

ETA: A link to the order is here.
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 11th February 2017, 09:46 AM   #301
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,825
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
That's not a good analogy. For starters, the level of judicial scrutiny that applies is much greater. Some judges consider the fact that stop and frisk has disparate impact sufficient to declare its unconstitutionality.

In any case, I was referring to a subtler point which is that the comments made by the person who is now President, before he became President, are irrelevant. This is because the Presidency is an institution, not just a human being. It comes with all of the "baggage" of office, including the advice of the entire executive branch bureaucracy, as well as any relevant classified information which bears on national security.

Not least of all, whatever Trump said before he became President was also said before he took the oath of office in which he pledges to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws. If we expect Trump to take that oath seriously, the courts should treat the pre-oath Trump as a different entity from the post-oath Trump.
You will notice that I made no reference to judges in my post or previous comments by Trump in my post. It is solely focused on if it is still actually a Muslim ban.

Only affects 15% of the world's Muslims? An effort to exterminate 15% of any ethnic group is still genocide.
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 11th February 2017, 10:51 AM   #302
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You will notice that I made no reference to judges in my post or previous comments by Trump in my post. It is solely focused on if it is still actually a Muslim ban.

Only affects 15% of the world's Muslims? An effort to exterminate 15% of any ethnic group is still genocide.
Ok. I still don't think it's a Muslim ban, do you? I don't think Trump has animus against Muslims, per se. Nor do I certainly. He probably just thinks that Muslimness, and particularly Muslimness from a country awash in Islamic extremism, is a risk factor in terrorism. As do I.
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 11th February 2017, 11:42 AM   #303
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,825
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Ok. I still don't think it's a Muslim ban, do you? I don't think Trump has animus against Muslims, per se.
I do think it is and I do think he does.
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 11th February 2017, 11:48 AM   #304
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I do think it is and I do think he does.
How is it a Muslim ban when Muslims from other countries can still immigrate here?
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 11th February 2017, 11:51 AM   #305
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Trump responded on twitter

Quote:
SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!
I wonder where he thinks this was decided, if not in court?
__________________
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 11th February 2017, 11:54 AM   #306
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,825
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
How is it a Muslim ban when Muslims from other countries can still immigrate here?
The same way you don't need a policy to kill everyone of an ethnic group to commit genocide.

The same way stop and frisk targets black people even though not every black person is affected MD some non black people are.

I think this idea it.must be all or nothing is risible.
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 11th February 2017, 11:56 AM   #307
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Ok. I still don't think it's a Muslim ban, do you?
Rudi Guiliani says that a Muslim ban is what Trump was after. So if you're saying that it's not, then all you're doing is saying that Trump was unable to do what he set out to do.
__________________
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 11th February 2017, 12:09 PM   #308
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The same way you don't need a policy to kill everyone of an ethnic group to commit genocide.
It would be like committing genocide against a group while sparing 90% of said group. That doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
The same way stop and frisk targets black people even though not every black person is affected MD some non black people are.
Stop-and-frisk doesn't target anyone. Blacks are affected more than whites, but men are affected more than women, young people more than seniors, etc. The comparison to Trump's travel ban is ridiculous.

Quote:
I think this idea it.must be all or nothing is risible.
When you're talking about something being a ban on a group, and it never mentions any specific group and only afffects 10% of the members of that group, I don't see how it can be a ban. That's like trying to ban alcohol by making it illegal for Vons to sell it.
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 11th February 2017, 12:10 PM   #309
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Rudi Guiliani says that a Muslim ban is what Trump was after. So if you're saying that it's not, then all you're doing is saying that Trump was unable to do what he set out to do.
I know what was said, I'm asking how is it a ban if hundreds of millions of Muslims from other countries can still come here?
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 11th February 2017, 12:14 PM   #310
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,825
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It would be like committing genocide against a group while sparing 90% of said group. That doesn't make any sense.



When you're talking about something being a ban on a group, and it never mentions any specific group and only afffects 10% of the members of that group, I don't see how it can be a ban. That's like trying to ban alcohol by making it illegal for Vons to sell it.
On the genocide note, it does makes sense. It is still genocide. It doesn't have to be binary.

Same with your vons example (whatever that is). You described an alcohol ban. It isn't 100%. Few things are.
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 11th February 2017, 12:36 PM   #311
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16,553
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I know what was said, I'm asking how is it a ban if hundreds of millions of Muslims from other countries can still come here?
If you're sunmaster14, then I probably ought to report you for sock-puppeteering. If you're not, then my post wasn't addressed to you.
__________________
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 11th February 2017, 12:43 PM   #312
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
On the genocide note, it does makes sense. It is still genocide. It doesn't have to be binary.
Granted, though genocide involves targeting a specific group. Trump's ban doesn't target any specific group. Everyone in those particular countries is caught up in it.

Quote:
Same with your vons example (whatever that is). You described an alcohol ban. It isn't 100%. Few things are.
I described Vons banning alcohol, and even that was a bad example because it's a specific store banning a specific product. But even there, to say one store's banning a product could then be construed as some generalized "ban on alcohol" would be ridiculous when you can simply walk into another store and buy it.

A Muslim ban, the way I understand the term, would specifically target Muslims and ban them from coming here. A "Muslim ban" certainly wouldn't exempt 90% of Muslims.
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 11th February 2017, 12:50 PM   #313
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,825
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
A Muslim ban, the way I understand the term, would specifically target Muslims and ban them from coming here. A "Muslim ban" certainly wouldn't exempt 90% of Muslims.
It still would be a Muslim ban.
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 11th February 2017, 12:54 PM   #314
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It still would be a Muslim ban.
If it referred to specific Muslims that were banned entry, I guess. Trump's EO doesn't do that.
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 11th February 2017, 01:06 PM   #315
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Rudi Guiliani says that a Muslim ban is what Trump was after. So if you're saying that it's not, then all you're doing is saying that Trump was unable to do what he set out to do.
No, I'm saying that, despite what either Trump or Guiliani called it then or call it now, it was never meant to be a Muslim ban in the sense of keeping Muslims out of the country because they're Muslim. The ban was meant to improve security by keeping people likely to be terrorists out of the country. Trump used inflammatory language to get some media attention (most likely), but I think his policy goal was to make the US safer from terrorism. The fact that there is a positive correlation between terrorism and adherence to Islam does not mean that taking Muslimness into account as a factor is a ban on Muslims. I don't think he wanted a ban on Muslims. He really wanted a ban on people coming from countries overrun by terrorists. That was my view of his view from the very beginning, and eventually his people came around to fleshing out a sensible policy that accomplished what his rather scattered mind was envisioning.
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 11th February 2017, 01:11 PM   #316
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,825
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
No, I'm saying that, despite what either Trump or Guiliani called it then or call it now, it was never meant to be a Muslim ban in the sense of keeping Muslims out of the country because they're Muslim. The ban was meant to improve security by keeping people likely to be terrorists out of the country. Trump used inflammatory language to get some media attention (most likely), but I think his policy goal was to make the US safer from terrorism. The fact that there is a positive correlation between terrorism and adherence to Islam does not mean that taking Muslimness into account as a factor is a ban on Muslims. I don't think he wanted a ban on Muslims. He really wanted a ban on people coming from countries overrun by terrorists. That was my view of his view from the very beginning, and eventually his people came around to fleshing out a sensible policy that accomplished what his rather scattered mind was envisioning.
I think he feels Islam in its entirety is incompatible with safety, and his teem, particularly bannonn are in total agreement. He doesn't mean safety like you and I mean safety. He means 1950s white racist ideas of safety. And his EO is as broadly targeted against muslims as possible.
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 11th February 2017, 01:14 PM   #317
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,136
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
But Giuliani was (I think) referring to stuff done while Trump was still a candidate. Many months before the election, Trump's "muslim ban" had morphed into a ban on immigration from countries where terrorism was a serious problem.
Did it really? Then why not one country that has had citizens involved in attacks against us?

Was Trump really unable to change the magic "Obama said 7!!" countries into a more accurate group? I mean he SAW tens of thousands of Muslims cheering the destruction of the WTC, remember? Why not include the country where the majority of those hijackers came from?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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, 01:19 PM   #318
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I think he feels Islam in its entirety is incompatible with safety, and his teem, particularly bannonn are in total agreement. He doesn't mean safety like you and I mean safety. He means 1950s white racist ideas of safety. And his EO is as broadly targeted against muslims as possible.
If Trump was broadly targeting Muslims, why did he exclude so many Muslim-majority countries? His ban makes no sense to either side: it's not a Muslim-ban, like his supporters wanted, because it excludes countries like Saudi Arabia, and the security-angle isn't believable because, again, it excludes countries like Saudi Arabia.
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 11th February 2017, 01:23 PM   #319
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,825
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
If Trump was broadly targeting Muslims, why did he exclude so many Muslim-majority countries?
Because he wants to ban as many Muslims as possible. An effort to ban more would result in a greater rebuke from the nation and a worst reversal. Some is better than none.
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 11th February 2017, 01:34 PM   #320
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
[b]Because he wants to ban as many Muslims as possible. An effort to ban more would result in a greater rebuke from the nation and a worst reversal. Some is better than none.
I don't think Trump is that clever and his EO blew up in his face anyway.
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
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 04:51 PM.
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.