Sorry, but it is hyperbole. Saying ‘all’ is incorrect and misleading. Even if this phase goes through (which I doubt but guess we shall see), what Trump is proposing is still only a fraction of all Muslims who immigrate to the US each year. The countries his ban encompasses aren’t the top countries Muslims actually immigrate to the US from each year. That is pretty much the definition of ‘hyperbole’…an exaggerated statement or claim.
Fair enough, I get what you mean. I would then pose the question, if the judge used hyperbole in his explanation of his decision, how does our usage detract from the argument?
IMHO, we should focus on the fact that the ban pretty obviously targets Muslims. That is easily verifiable and substantiated based on the countries being targeted. Trying to say that we are banning all Muslims, on the other hand, is equally something that one can look up…and can be debunked with little effort. Having been debunked, IMHO, then shifts the whole discussion and can throw into question whether this is important enough, especially to those who don’t look deeply at this. To use an analogy, if one uses hyperbole to claim Climate Change is going to give us a water world nightmare in 50 years (or something along those lines), that’s pretty easy to debunk. That doesn’t mean Climate Change isn’t real or important, however…or that CLIMATE CHANGE itself has been debunked. All the person making the hyperbolic statement has done is give the opposing side an easy way to refute that one claim and throw doubt on the argument.
Your post
[QUOTE=XT]
Trump et al didn’t call for a ban on all Muslims.
[/QUOTE]
The article quotes Trump as calling for “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".
Forgive me if I find your responses to be willfully obtuse and unwilling to see what is right before your eyes.
Would it be okay to ban only a fraction of Jews from your golf club? Keep only a fraction of blacks from using your drinking fountain? Bar only a fraction of Hispanics from voting? The idea that you can excuse yourself for attacking a group because you don’t attack every single member is preposterous.
Yes…the article says that. And it puts it in quotes too. But if you actually read the article, it’s clear that’s not what’s happening. If you actually look at what Trump et al tried to do in their first cluster fuck as well as what they are trying to do in cluster fuck, phase II it’s also not what’s happening.
So…I guess if you really WANT to try and take what Trump says at face value over what actually was tried and what he is trying again, that’s fine. Forgive me if I don’t take what he says at face value, and that I call what he said ‘hyperbole’ as well as what the poster I questioned as ‘hyperbole’ as well.
Now THIS is both offensive and ridiculous. You know, folks can actually scroll up and see what I ACTUALLY wrote on this, yes? Again, for anyone who can’t be bothered, the ban is focused on Muslims, plain and simple. The FACT that it doesn’t ban ‘all’ or even ‘most’ Muslims is that it targets only Muslims, and does so by playing on people’s fears of Muslim terrorism. Banning people based on their religious affiliate is wrong…THAT’S THE FUCKING POINT. Saying it is banning ‘all’ Muslims is easily debunked and detracts FROM THE FUCKING POINT. Get it??
All this horseshit about Jews from golf courses and the rest has zero to do with my point, nor does it in any way, shape or form represent what I was getting at (i.e. your attempt to backhandedly portray me as a racist who might agree that, yeah, maybe we SHOULD ban Jews from golf courses, etc etc).
I think this is a semantic argument. As a candidate, Trump called for a total ban on Muslim immigration. As President, he tried to enact a very broad ban on Muslim immigration.
I don’t see it that way. He hasn’t tried (nor do I think he could get away with it) a broad ban on all Muslims. He’s tried to do a targeted ban on Muslims from specific countries…none of which are the top countries that Muslims actually come into the US from. What Trump might have SAID, to me, is irrelevent…he says so much bullshit that what you have to do, again IMHO is to see what actually happens. He SAYS Obama wiretapped him…but there is zero evidence this happened. He SAYS a lot of stuff, most of which is a load of horseshit that plays to his base. What he actually tried to DO, however, was not a ban on all Muslims…unless you want to try and define ‘all’ as being ‘all Muslims from 7, and now 6, countries that have Muslim majorities’.
At any rate, I’ll just drop this as it detracts (which was what I was trying to correct and have avoided, but you guys just can’t do that) from the actual point of the thread as well as the point we should be focused on wrt his focused ban on Muslims…which is that this idiot is attempting to ban people based on their religion.
I’ve seen shows like the Duggar’s “19 kids and counting” and if they’re representative of Baptists and how they treat their women I don’t share those values at all.
Can we get rid of the Baptists?
That’s not a logical conclusion. People who are citizens here have a right to be here. Those who aren’t don’t.
Holders of green cards have a right.
Then they shouldn’t be harassed by border patrol or whatever. I’m not a huge fan of a lot of what government does. However, I don’t have an issue with legally enforcing border security.
Sorry XT, but you are completely wrong on this one. You may want to ignore what he said in the recent past and instead focus on what he tried to do. But he did say what he said, so technically you are incorrect.
Beyond technicalities I think both what he says and what he tries to do are equally important. The first is a window into what he wants*, the second merely what he thinks he can get.
ETA: * If you really want to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps what he wanted. But I’m not feeling that generous at the moment.
This country is filled with the descendants of people fleeing religious oppression. Why should we discriminate against people just because they belong to this one religion?
I don’t want to give him anything, including the benefit of any doubt. I have no doubts that if he COULD ban all Muslims he would. However, in the name of putting this to rest and in all fairness to and every poster who has commented on this, save Bob who’s post still offends, I’ll concede…I was wrong. running coach said ‘Trump called for a ban on all Muslims. Can’t be more direct than that’, and that is true, not hyperbole…he did call for that, even if, as with many of his statements, he’s walked it back (he took it off his website for instance) and in reality didn’t try and actually do this.
It’s equally true to say that he did, in fact, try to do some version of this.
I don’t think this country (whichever it is) has any interest in you letting their citizens immigrate. Probably the contrary in most cases. So, there’s no reason why you banning them from entering would bother this country the slighest bit, or would make it take action.
One could write an entire book in response to the OP’s question, so I’ll go in the opposite direction and condense it down to its essence: because judging individual people based on the putative characteristics of an entire class, be it race, religion, or national origin, is the essential definition of bigotry.
The corollary to that is that both the US and Canada were founded on the principles of welcoming immigrants from diverse places and cultures, and became great nations in large part on the strength of it. Conversely, from time to time the idea has taken hold that some races and cultures are “better” than others, and this has never ended well.
If the current “Muslim ban” should remind us of anything, it’s that any policy that has bigotry at its core – however well-intentioned it may be – is bound to demonstrate overt bigotry sooner or later. We see it already in students, scientists, engineers, and ordinary innocent people on holiday being harassed and turned away for no other reason than because of what they look like or where they or their parents were born. It happens because the legitimization of bigotry emboldens not just rural hillbillies, but government officials right down the line of authority.
The mercenary reason to accept immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, is to poach smart people from other countries. There’s a reason the tech industry pushed back against the ban.
As for the worry that in the future there will be enclaves of Muslims creating second and third generation domestic terrorists a la Europe, well, the security state is always on the look out for more rationalizations for curtailing rights, consider this a freebie.