Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

>It's an ad hominem to apply universal consistency

So, as you said

Yet you don't actually accept any yourself. You want other people to be forced to pay for their housing and food:

And neither should I. If you WANT to house them, do it. You cannot make ME house them by force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

With what money? Are houses free? Is transportation free?

 

That is what taxes are for. I don't want to be forced to pay for needless war either but I don't get that choice.

You are just strawmanning. The third amendment doesn't apply anyways since they are not soldiers. But regardless no one will be forced to house them. They will be found apartments or be housed in transitional housing with the government footing the bill for a short time until they get on their feet.

Taxes.

 

Right, so, in the same way that you don't approve being taxes to pay for wars, other people don't approve of being forced to pay taxes to import people who openly hate them, and are willing to use violence against innocent people.

They are soldiers. They have declared war on infidels. They have claimed over 100 million casualties worldwide already.

I already said: Houses are not free. If people, like you, currently aren't housing them voluntarily, then someone else must be forced to house them.

Apartments aren't free either. And in case you forgot, the government doesn't have any money. Also, you said "for a short time". What happens ater their time runs out to "get on their feet", does the government put them in the street with no food?

I shouldn't have to pay taxes unless I don't want to.

 

There's a bunch of things wrong here.

A) I would prefer to not fund things I do not approved of but because we will in a republic I do not get that choice so making the argument that you don't want to pay for it is pointless and doesn't add anything to your argument.
B) The people that are being brought as refugees do not openly hate us or they would not pass the multi-year background check that is required for them to be considered
C) The people that are being brought as refugees do not use or condone violence against innocents or they would again not pass that background check and would not be brought here

You are stating things as facts that are not facts or at least are not so incontrovertible that they could be treated as facts for the sake of the argument, which basically means you don't have an argument.

First, see above.

Second I very strongly dispute the 100 million casualty figure. Do you have a source?

No one has to be forced. There is more than enough empty housing in the US to house them even if no temporary shelter was made for them.

Hopefully they wouldn't need any more assistance and iirc refugees have generally been very successful. If they need more assistance then we give it to them. We are the richest country in the world. If we want to remain the world's leader we need to lead and not just tell people that it sucks to suck.

A) You've messed up your negatives so your statement makes no sense.
B) Well in the ideal world you wouldn't have to pay taxes but this isn't an ideal world so you have to. This is really an entirely different debate.

 

"I do not get that choice" -- That is the moral tragedy here. Bread is taken off of my table, and the tables of my eventual children to feed people who will subject my children to brutal Islamic law. How is my objection to be subjugated to this obvious injustice "pointless"?

Do you think that the government can just call Assad, and ask him to run a background check on Mohammad Mohammad. There is no background check.

And this is just for the initial generation. Children of Muslim immigrants are even MORE LIKELY to advocate the use of violence, suicide bombings, etc. than their parents.

So the World Trade Center is still there? What about 130 graves in Paris, are they empty? Are the dozen+ killed in Cali just taking a nap? The 1400 British girls who were raped, was it their imagination? The multiple shootings in Texas and France committed by Muslims for drawing their prophet? These couldn't have possibly taken place since there's no way that Muslims condone violence, and if they did, they certainly wouldn't be allowed to immigrate to prey on the native populations right??

You must be tired from moving all those goalposts bro. Why don't you have any refugees in your house? Why is it that it's the morally correct thing to do, and you would force other people to give up their lives and labor for it, yet you won't do it yourself? Why the double standard? The burden of proof is on you to prove to me that I should be subjected to forced labor to provide for these people, yet you won't provide for them yourself.

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery
http://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

The second source uses a multiplier for the known tolls to push the number above 200 million, but 100 million is well within confirmed death counts. Keep in mind exactly how much land these empires controlled - all the way into lower Europe, the Iberian peninsula, India, China, Constantinople, etc.

So there are houses that just sprung out of the ground in the United States that, otherwise, no one would be living in or own unless we put Muslim migrants in them? What about their food?

So, what you are saying is, it's not temporary. If they choose not to earn their own food, I would be continually drained to feed and house that person from my own wallet. And what the fuck do you mean richest country -- we have 20 trillion dollars in debt, not mountains of free food.

So, you are allowed to do whatever you want, but other people have to do whatever you want as well. Got it. I mean, it's not a perfect world, why shouldn't I have my earnings stripped from me by force? What a ridiculous notion!

 

You are still using a false premise in your argument so I am just going to ignore it.

This is simply not true.

Do you have a source for that? I dispute that fact, especially in the US.

The people who did 9/11 were not immigrants or refugees. The Paris attackers were not immigrants or refugees. You are making a faulty generalization, regardless.

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. I have simply rejected your attempts to move the goalposts. But regardless I don't have to prove that you should have to pay for this because that's an entirely different debate about the nature of government. You are also strawmanning me. I would happily take in a refugee but that's not how it will ever work.

Oh, throughout history?

Here's a source:https://www.quora.com/Which-religio...of-deaths-of-infidels-over-its-entire-history that says Christianity has killed many multiples of the number of people that Islam has. Regardless I don't think counting deaths of all of history is all that relevant to current day.

No the US just has a shit ton of empty housing. We also have plenty of excess food.

Having that much debt doesn't change the fact that we are the richest country in terms of GDP.

This is just more strawmanning and a red herring so I'm not even going to bother.

 

What premise is false? Repeat it to me and show me how it is false.

If it isn't true, how are all these people I listed dead from Islamic attacks? If violent Muslims were screened through background checks, why do we continue to see violent Muslims killing people? You might want to believe that these people aren't dead, and that their killers weren't Muslims killing in the name of their god, but we simply know that is false.

Of course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young-British-Muslims-getting-more-radical.html

They were all Muslim, and committed the attacks in the name of Islam. The people we are referring to, remember?

So, if you don't think I should be forced pay for them, who is paying for them?

Did I mention Christianity? You asked for a source, since you apparently didn't know the extent of Islamic brutality in terms of hundreds of millions of killings. If there were Christians from Syria who followed Jesus, a child rapist warlord, and they wanted to subjugate me to a Christian theocracy, would I oppose them too? OF COURSE!

Really? Where are all these unowned homes? I'll go live in one then. Where is this excess food?? I keep having to buy mine from a grocery store, I didn't know there was excess!

So, the government, who you said would pay for this, in fact is not rich, and in 20 trillion dollars debt. You mention the GDP - the amount owned and produced by individuals & businesses, which has nothing to do with government funds available to feed and house these people.

There's a reason you aren't able to respond. Read all your posts. You imagine that these people can be fed and housed with no negative consequences whatsoever. You refuse to face the FUCKING OBVIOUS REALITY THAT FOOD AND HOUSING AREN'T INFINITE. Want to know why you currently aren't feeding and housing a refugee at your own house? Because these costs clearly exist in real life, but not in your fantasy.

 

I've already pointed it out in previous posts.

Here's a source that proves you wrong: http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

The rest is strawmanning so I will ignore it.

That source does not prove your point. It says younger Muslims are more likely to be radical than older Muslims but it does not say if these are recent immigrant or second generation people.

I apologize. I thought Trump was only talking about refugees. Regardless, you are still committing a faulty generalization.

This is a strawman and a red herring. I will not debate the nature of government in this thread. I will be happy to in another thread.

We have conflicting sources and I do not accept your source as more valid than my source so I reject your number. Regardless, ancient historical acts should not be taken into account when planning current policy.

Literally everywhere. Here's a source: http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-...ess-6-to-1-so-why-not-give-them-homes/207194/

There are 18 MILLION empty homes in the US. There is no shortage of housing at all.

Debt is meaningless on its own. GDP is relevant because it gives us an idea of how much the government is able to collect in the form of taxation. I also said that the country was the richest, not the government, although our government is still the richest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_budgets_by_country

So your argument is that we can not afford it? I could easily afford to house a refugee, since that costs nothing. I could also easily feed a refugee because groceries really are not that expensive.

 

So what is it? You can't just say "You're wrong, but I'm not going to tell you the reason you are wrong"

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/f...et-all-syrian-refugees-for-terror-ties-video/

I understand that the US might have the intention to do background checks, but they don't. The FBI director has publicly stated how they do not have the ability to do background checks on these absolute strangers.

Second generation. The children of migrants who grow up in the west, on average, hold more violent Islamic beliefs than the migrants themselves.

This is the thread to discuss the importation is Muslims. How is cost of that importation a complete strawman and red herring?

Post your source then. I'd love to see a source that somehow manages to miss 1400 years of conquest history across 3 continents.

EMPTY, not UNOWNED. These are other people's houses, they they are either intending to sell or rent. They obviously can't sell or rent them if they are filled by migrants who did not build those houses.

Wealth isn't measured by how much you spend, it's measured by how much you have. You said that the government is rich enough to feed and house these people, but the government has -$20 Trillion.

Houses cost money. Not nothing.

There's more than 1 refugee. Feeding one person generally isn't expensive, feeding millions is a massive expense.

 

Americans are hypocrites and ignorant. How do Native Americans feel about the americans who came to this country and murdered a majority of their race?
Of course silly sheeple will believe anything the mainstream media tells them. Theres no hope for you people..

EDIT: Also if you believe that muslims have been carrying out theese false flags portrayed of CNN please do me a favor and chug a bottle of bleach maybe it'll help that fluoridated brain of yours.

 

Request for this thread to be closed - It has gone completely off topic for an entire page and is just people arguing about shit that barely pertains to the subject at all.

This thread was supposed to be personal opinion about one man's proposal - Not an argument about what the 1st amendment means or stands for - A simple post about if you agree or disagree and why or why not.




EDIT: At once I'll no longer be coming back to this thread and at once it's already completely off, I'll throw in my 2 cents...


The first amendment:

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This says that I can choose to become a muslim. I have the right, no one can take that away. And that will continue to be the fact if the proposal were to be accepted when/if Trump gets into office.

The 1st amendment says NOTHING about migration of anything, even religion. End of story.

 

So where have we gone off topic? We are discussing his proposal vs the current policy. And this section isn't for posting "I agree" or "I don't". That's not a discussion.

It is EXPLICITLY allowed. Stop spreading this misinformation.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

 

The first amendment supersedes that passage. Explicitly banning something in a later amendment will take precedence. The government is not allowed to favor one religion over another and banned a specific religion is favoring all other religions over it.

 

That's not what I am saying. I already answered your question so I will not repeat myself.

That source doesn't say what you said it says. It says they can not perform "thorough" background checks on all of the refugees. It does not say they can not perform any background checks on any of them.

That isn't what your source said.

You've changed the goalposts again and I've already answered your issue so I won't answer it again.

I believe I already did.

Another strawman. Only you are saying that they will be housed against the owners will without compensation. No one else is.

Ok. I'm not going to argue this since it's completely irrelevant but if you add up all the land / mineral rights / assets the US government owns I would be very surprised if it is not the richest, regardless of debt.

I have to pay for my housing regardless. Another person living here costs me nothing.

It's not in the context of government spending.

 

So they do pretend background checks so we can pretend to be safe. Bet it sort of sucked when those people who passed the background checks started executing infidels huh.

Yes it is. It's what the article is about. Here's a direct quote.

Your answer is that the US government is rich and can pay for it. I have proven that the US government is 20 trillion dollars in debt (with 180 trillion more in liabilities). Your answer is PROVABLY WRONG. Continuing to use the argument that the government has excess food and housing for them is invalid, since it uses a FALSE PREMISE.

What a fucking joke, can you please read your own source if you are going use it for evidence? Here's a direct quote from your "Source" who openly admits to the incomplete list and glaring oversights.

Compensation means it's not FREE housing. I don't understand how this blatant contradiction isn't obvious to you.

Surprise.

Contradiction of your previous premises:

I understand that you personally could theoretically support another human being with housing and food with your current earnings, by choice, but that is not the claim you are imposing on others.

 

I support it 110%, we are especially here in Europe seeing problems with the refugees, as what happend it paris, people are getting raped, stores are getting robbed. And you said less than 20 % of the muslims support ISIS, 20% is still 320 million muslims, more than enough to take us all out. Hopefully it doesnt get out of control more than what it is, but I think they should close the borders until the issue is resolved.

 

I'm going to re-post your previous premises since you keep contradicting them, or are trying to make arguments based on premises that are objectively false.


=========================

Premise 1: People should not be forced to house others, no one will be forced to house them.

Premise 2: The government should subsidize the cost of living for others, with no obligation for people unwilling to contribute.

Premise 3: Tax money is forced from people against their will to pay for things they don't need or want.

Premise 4: Taxes will be forced from others to pay for housing, transportation etc. - DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH PREMISE 1 & 2 & 3 -

Premise 5: Government living subsidies for these people are only temporary (which means the migrants must eventually earn their own living, or starve when they no longer receive subsidies).

Premise 6: Their cost of living subsidies are indefinite - DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH PREMISE 5 -

Premise 7: Migrants do not use or condone violence. Anyone who did could not pass a background check. - PROVABLY FALSE. -

These are the San Bernardino Islamic terrorists who passed a background check, then killed 14 Americans.



Premise 8: Paris shooters, etc were not Islamic migrants - PROVABLY FALSE. -

==================================

Also, quit poisoning the waters of our debate by continually calling YOUR contradictions MY fallacies. You made a moral judgement:

And when the claim you made was applied to the person who made the claim, you responded calling it an ad hominem (attack against your character).

You open your post by saying there's a bunch of things wrong with my claim. Then go on to post multiple provably false claims. Then you say "I have no argument" based on your objectively false claims.

You claim I have a false premise, and therefore will ignore my argument, but refuse to post proof of falsity.

You claim that I am making a faulty generalization fallacy, then support it with an anecdote, which in fact turned out to be a false anecdote anyway.

You shift the burden of proof.

First you dispute my claim

Then you move the goalposts

Then you make Christianity into a red herring (using false data as your source as well).

Then instead of addressing the contradiction of premises 1-4, you completely ignore your contradiction and just say I have made a straw man and red herring.

You provide another invalid source, and then you say my objective proof that your claim is false is a strawman, so you will ignore it.

You refuse to compare credibility of contradictory sources, when your source is objectively false by the author's own admission.

When faced with your contradiction of not forcing people house them, but then forcefully taxing people to house them, I ask you directly:

Once again, since you refuse to acknowledge your contradiction, you say I make a straw man, then a red herring, and then that I moved the goalposts.

==================================

There are fallacies, and there are arguments. You can't just claim "fallacy" to make an actual argument go away. Stop PRETENDING to debate me and ACTUALLY ADDRESS YOUR OWN PREMISES.

 

This single issue, on muslim migration, raises a whole host of issues.

First this issue on a more philosophically level demonstrates the problem with public property. This issue then is entirely the cause of an embracement of public property, and the rejection of privatising all property. If all property were privatised, the issue would fall away. Amazing how complex problems on an international scale presuppose the rejection of private property.

One potential practical workaround that I've heard of is a type of sponsoring program. Families that want to sponsor a refugee or something of that nature to live with them would be free to do so. This I typically don't see a problem with.


The more important question, which is on most peoples mind, is if we let x number of muslims in, what will happen to y country? If the answer to this question was nothing, that they would be hard working, get along well, integrate well, etc, then this debate WOULD NOT BE HAD, save for attacks on their race. Unfortunately, the answer is not this. The problem stems from the fact that empirically, this abstract group of 'refugees' seem to take more than they give, they're on welfare, they have a publically negative perception (justified or not is irrelevant) amplifying fractions. Is it really a wonder what will happen and why? I said the same thing after the Paris bombings, are people really surprised shit is going to happen? Then we have this big Cologne incident. I mean really, if people want to wield the sword of justice, do not forget the people, the culture, that allows you to wield that sword of justice. Go to a country that practices Sharia law and see how far you get wielding that sword of justice. Many lashes for you. Though my knowledge in history is admittedly lacking, as far as I know, the influx of foreigners and a large welfare state is a precursor to a states impending collapse. Must we really not address the weight of historical evidence before us, must we really pretend to be blind to the consequences of allowing groups of people in who just don't assimilate, and some of which who have ideologies so incompatible with ours that they would usurp it and substitute it for their own?

Perhaps people don't seem to care about that. Perhaps they just want to help the poor and disadvantaged. Fine. However I think you would find that it is the most advantaged of disadvantaged kids that get the scholarships. Likewise, I would be pretty sure that it is also generally the most advantaged of these disadvantaged people that end up trying/wanting/able to migrate. We're accepting some people in who throw the aid we give them back at us. The person who does that, is not so disadvantaged now is he?

So if you want to champion your public property over private property, fine. If you want to ignore the potential consequences of allowing people who will fracture our society, whose existence echoes the precursors of collapse in the pages of history, fine. But at least recognize that the most disadvantaged people in the Middle East probably aren't the people you so ardently want to let in. Think why.

 

Who are these people? I know of no refugees that have be involved in terrorist attacks.

No. No it is not. Young people is not the same thing as second generation children of immigrants. Here's your post if you have forgotten:

Your source does not back up what you say, period.

No. You have not proved that the government is poor. You are moving the goal posts so more. The government doesn't have to OWN housing to make use of it. There's this thing called "renting". Very advanced topic, that is.

Ok, so Christianity is still about as deadly as Islam so why not ban them from the US?

No one said it was. Stop straw manning.

It's not massively expensive when you consider it in the context of government spending. There is no contradiction.

So? I was never proposing I take an immigrant. You were.

These do not contradict each other. You've just made a false dilemma.

I have no idea what you are even saying.

Yes this is basically the nature of any government.

No it doesn't. Paying for is not the same thing as providing. This is just another false dilemma.

No its not. One is in a macro view and one is in a micro view.

A) The guy was a US citizen
B) The girl was not a refugee
C) I should have said the vast majority

That's news to me but you failed to read the next few paragraphs and are selectively quoting. 7/9 (if I counted right) of them were from France or other EU countries. Seems a lot like refugees are less dangerous than your fellow citizens.

Yeah all my "contradictions" are not at all.

That quote is clearly an ad hominem.

It's impossible to prove a negative. You have failed to prove that all refugees are brutal terrorists so therefore we assume it is false.

I was partially mistaken (2/9). Regardless it is still a faulty generalization since your sample size is far too small to draw meaningful conclusions from.

Because that's an entire argument in itself and I'm not going to have an argument over nature of government in a thread that is about a government response to a problem. It's the same as if I said prove that governments have the right to stop the free migrations of peoples. If we assume they do not then this entire thread is pointless so for the sake of staying on topic we assume that they do.

I didn't move the goalposts. I misunderstood your claim because by making your claim about all of history it makes it not at all relevant to this current situation and I assumed you were referring to something that would be relevant.

Which I immediately said wasn't relevant. I was just humoring you.

There are not contradictions, as I have said. You are misunderstanding my argument, which I have also already explained in this post. Then you go off about the nature of government, which I again have already explain in this post, again which leads us to strawman and red herring.

How is this one invalid? You are using a red herring again since this source is not at all related to the previous source. You are straw manning by putting words in my mouth. Clearly I do not think people didn't die.

I missed that part of the source but I still do not believe it is relevant. I also only clicked the first link on google. Since its not meaningful in this debate I wasn't going to bother to find a better source.

Instead of addressing the fact that you are straw manning you change the goalposts on me. Debating on where or not taxes are moral is completely different than how much providing for the refugees will cost. You changed the goal posts.

Let's break it down. Should we pay for them? How much will that cost and how will we afford that? Those are legitimate questions.

Is taxation moral? This is not a legitimate question in the context of this thread.

If we take the 10,000 refugees that Obama wants to and assume that it will cost the absolutely ridiculous sum of $100,000 per refugee per year we get $1,000,000,000. The US federal budget is 3,800,000,000,000. So assuming the absolutely ridiculous number and assuming that only the US federal government and not any State governments nor private donations nor International governments, provides funding it is clear that we easily able to afford it. Even if you want to make it so that we don't run a deficit, we still have 3,400,000,000,000 to play with. Again easily able to afford it. How will we afford it? Cut defense from 619 billion to 618. Should we do that? That's a legitimate question.

Because I didn't make any and you did.

I can when its a fallacy.

 

I think a lot of this is not relevant to the US. We hardly have any welfare and you generally have to be looking for work or working to continue to receive it. We are also a nation of immigrants. They do not fracture our society since we are already fractured. Our culture is largely based around very abstract values that are very universal and it is likely that immigrants will find a place in US society that largely holds their values. For example look at work ethic. Our society loves working far more than Europe and we attract millions of immigrants who come here to work hard and achieve the American dream. We are vastly better at assimilating immigrants than other countries because nearly every person that lives here is descended from an immigrant and our ancestors no matter how different all basically coming here for the same reasons so we all have a lot in common.