So…now you are all Mr. Tough Guy: essentially, “you think I, of all people, would hesitate to make light of mass murder of civilians?” But you are also so deeply pacifistic, you use “wimp” in a uniquely laudatory way? 
More whiplash, even within the same post! Wow.
So let me get this straight. You’re an ardent pacifist, but you don’t favor giving preferential treatment in immigration to a group (non-Muslims) that you acknowledge “don’t still have the same violent factions, duh”? :dubious:
Denying entry into the country is not “persecution.”
per·se·cu·tion
/ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.
How is it not cruel or inhumane treatment to deny entry for refugees based on religious beliefs? Simply because you can’t see them die or suffer?
I don’t think it’s evil for a country to be preferentially concerned with the welfare of its own people, and to be concerned that demographic change could change the character and culture in a negative way in the long run.
Good point. Japan has been criticized for its nativism, but their culture would have been swamped long ago if they had let an unlimited number of Chinese people immigrate. I do feel it’s a bit different with places like the U.S., Canada, or Australia, though. If the vast majority of a country’s citizens do not have ancestors who lived there 500 years ago, the standards should be different—but still not wide open.
By change the character and culture, you mean White Christian?
Because that is the same old story that people have been pushing forever. Against the Irish, against the Finnish, against the Catholics.
In fact the Nazi’s looked to America as their inspiration through the works of Madison Grant and “envy” of racial restriction laws like in California. (actual fact, not subject to Godwin’s law) As the Christian bible has been used to commit almost exactly the same type of violence please explain further what you propose to do.
What ever it is it doesn’t sound very American.
William ‘Bill the Butcher’ Poole couldn’t have said it better!
CMC fnord!
From The Passing of the Great Race - Madison Grant 1916
Those Finns, Irish and Italian Americans sure did screw us up huh???
Same old bullshit in another era from people who are to fucking afraid to talk to someone different then them enough to find out…gasp…they are just humans too!!!
Come come now, good sir, the Modern Science of Phrenology clearly shows that the Irish and the Italians are not fully human!
CMC fnord!
The Scots-Irish and Dutch definitely did. I raised this point upthread, but I don’t recall you addressing it. (I know you would prefer to stay in your safe, comfortable strawman territory where the people you are engaging with are likely from one of those two groups, and are cool with any and all European immigration. Sorry to harsh your mellow, but my position is a little more nuanced than that.)
The Scots-Irish and Dutch resulted in the genocide of “white” Americans?
You didn’t prove that they caused a:
Which is the typical* white genocide trope.*
I just tried to explain to you that you cannot fall back on your preset objections to Charlottesville tiki-torch bullshit. That’s not where I’m coming from, much as you would love to shoehorn me into that mold.
warning: SlackerInc, will resort to ad hominem attacks when cornered
Strawman plus ad hominem plus red herring…this many pages in and you still have to resort to diversionary tactics to protect your precious bigoted arguments.
Did you not read Blalron’s post? Or are you just defensive about some secret membership in the Proud Boys? Because none of this post even relates to anything I was talking about.
Ad hominem? Are you shitting me? How much ad hominem do I dish out relative to what I receive? GMAFB :rolleyes:
Talking about ad hominems; what a dysfunctional mindset you must have which leads you to seek the feeling of being persecuted in order to avoid self-responsibility.
You are the one who wants to deny people access based solely on their religion, when in theory freedom of religion is one of this countries dearest rights.
A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance and you are preaching intolerance.
That’s what you were talking about? That’s what you describe with a straight face as “applauding” murderous terror attacks?
I think the term “mere frothy-lipped raving” may have been giving your argument too much credit. I’ll chalk it up to your having lost your temper and wait for the discussion to return to something more substantive.
Naw, that’s bullshit. If you’re going to play this gaslighting game, I’m not going to talk to you any more. Buh-bye now.
Figures you can’t tell the difference between words and deeds. Or being facetious about an idiotic statement and making light of the statement’s referent.
It does amuse me greatly that you still can’t tell when you’re the butt of the joke, though.
Yes. Because, unlike, say, racists, I don’t favour group profiling for immigration at all. By all means block people for things they’ve actually personally said and done. Not for who they are.
Has anyone linked CurrentAffairs’s excellent takedown of Sam Harris here yet?
Here’s an excerpt that might be relevant here:
This passage, in which Harris gives a series of articulate objections to his central thesis and then believes he has knocked them down in one fell swoop, offers a basic lesson in how overconfidence can blind us to basic reasoning errors. It should go in elementary logic textbooks to introduce the “Fallacies” section. As Robert Wright points out in an essay on Harris, arguing that “because there are lots of poor and exploited people who do not commit terrorism, poverty can be excluded as a cause of terrorism” is like arguing that “because there are plenty of people who smoke and do not get cancer, smoking can be excluded as a cause of cancer.”[22] The reasoning is so obviously wrong that we would never accept it in any other domain, and yet Harris believes it is clear and definitive proof that legions of Middle East commentators are ignoring the “unambiguous” truth. Harris doesn’t see that even if we accept his reasoning, we would land ourselves in a contradiction: Because there are plenty of Muslims who do not commit acts of terrorism, Islam cannot be a cause of terrorism either. We can agree with Harris that exceptions disprove tendencies, or we can disagree, but either way we’ve said nothing useful about the social and ideological roots of terror.
:dubious: I didn’t realize you were interpreting my phrase “frothy-lipped raving” as a serious attempt to falsely persuade you that you are actually suffering from mental illness, which is what “gaslighting” means.
Since that wasn’t in fact what I was doing, to reassure you I am happy to substitute the phrase “illogical idiocy” instead.
Well, if that means you’ll be posting less of the sort of illogical idiocy on display in your post #1837, for example, I think I can live with it.