Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

Paraphrasing your argument: If Donald Trump's proposal was imminent, 50 people wouldn't have died in Orlando.

Retrospective determinism is the logical fallacy that is committed when one claims that because something happened, it was therefore inevitable.

Not quite the correct fallacy since the proposal hasn't yet happened, but the assessment/breakdown is still the same.

You're saying it is inevitable that this wouldn't have happened if Donald Trump's temporary proposal was imminent. Well, as I explained twice before that is 100% false and isn't remotely close to being accurate.

Every time I lose what? You don't even know what you're talking about more than half the time, and your response proves just that.

What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly, do you even read before you post?

 

Why do you waste your time arguing and trying to prove points on deaf ears, these guys argue for the sake of argument lol.. You can throw any type of factual knowledge at them and they'll disregard it because they're so firm and stubborn in their ideology.

I spent like 3 days trying to make this guy understand why trump is garbage, and his only point was on his steak business venture... literally like talking to a brick wall and expecting it to understand what you're saying! =[

 

You are the one who ignores facts because of your ideology:

How is the statement "If Muslims were not allowed to immigrate to the United States, the Orlando shooting would not have occured" 100% false and not remotely close to accurate?

-"The Muslim is a U.S. citizen, He is in the U.S. already." does not make the above claim untrue
-"Was Trump running for President decades ago?" does not make the above claim untrue
-"There are Muslim citizens" does not make the above claim untrue
-"You can convert to Islam within the U.S." does not make the above claim untrue

If Trump became Pres after the San Bernardino Islamic attack and banned Muslims then, no, it would not have prevented this attack specifically. The goal is to prevent more Islamic attacks in the future - and the Orlando shooting is just more proof that allowing violent Muslims to immigrate allows Islam to take more victims in the United States, as we see it has taken in New York, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando, Texas, Paris, Brussels, London, Ankara, Germany, etc.

Mass slaughters by Muslims are only the most un-ignorable downsides to having people who worship Muhammad in your country. Mass rape attacks, such as the rape of 1400 British girls, and the mass sexual attacks across Germany, Sweden, are a daily threat to the populace that live there.

The worst threat of all is the threat of Muslims overtaking the demographic of Western countries and voting in Muslim leaders who pass laws based on Sharia.

Omar Mateen's citizenship status is simply not a factor in the attack. Islam was, and blood is on your hands since you would give more followers of Islam the same opportunity.

 

he doesnt lol, theres a reason he hides his tax returns... im sure he's obviously filthy rich, but no where near his 10 billion dollar mark he claims..

 

I proved to you he was a multibillionaire

Show me your proof. Prove to me how I'm misinformed.

 

how did you prove he was a multibillionaire because forbes claims it? forbes has been saying justin biebers net worth is 200m for the past 3 years lmao.. their information is unreliable especially when someone like trump is so secretive, you didn't prove shit honestly.

 

Their information is unreliable? Prove it. They are a nearly 100 year old publication, best known for their billionaire list in particular.



You say "I didn't prove shit" when I offer a credible source. Where is a single shred of proof you have offered? Prove to me how I am misinformed.

 

I'm not sure if you can read, but this thread is titled "Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban". A proposed ban that is NOT ARCHAIC. You said if Donald Trump's proposal was in place, this wouldn't have occurred. That's not true.

Come back when you can refute these two points.

 

The merits of banning Muslims are only more obvious after the attack because it shows how Muslims continue to be violent threats generations after they immigrate.

The ban being temporary is not relevant to the attack.

Omar Mateen being a citizen is not relevant to the attack.

Blood is on your hands because you would allow more Muslims the same opportunity by saying the attack wouldn't have been prevented, when it would have if Muslims were not allowed to come in.

You should be ashamed of yourself because you continue to put lives in danger by refusing to condemn Muhammad's violent teachings and the people who follow him.

You asked this and I answered you. I showed that Islam is a threat to American freedoms and Western civilization, and Omar Mateen's attack is further proof:

 

I'm not sure if you can read. Everything Xier0 said is true, but you are just refusing to admit it. It seems as if you have a mental disorder or something, cause there is no other way. It's very simple logic to follow. Like primary school level. Drop your bias for a second and read his argument.

 

Stop with the Red Herring. You didn't even read the quoted post you're replying to. I'll reiterate.

IF DONALD TRUMP'S PROPOSAL TO TEMPORARILY BAN MUSLIMS FROM ENTERING THE US WAS IN PLACE TODAY, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT OR STOP THE MASS SHOOTING? Don't backpedal now. You said if Trump's proposal was in place, this wouldn't have happened. You still aren't telling me how.

You do realize his parent's came in the US when Ronald Reagan was President? The same guy who signed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?

I'll wait for the variables.

Can you read? You still didn't answer the question. I'll ask you again.

How would blocking out what's already in help and why is this relevant to the thread?

How is what he is saying true? Let me ask you. How would Donald Trump's temporary ban negate the Orlando mass shooting from happening? This is something he cannot answer because there is no logical relation between the two.

 

Banning Muslims today cannot bring back the dead, stop asking rhetorical questions. I told you that the shooting would have been prevented if violent Muslims were not allowed to immigrate, which is true.

Yes. You do realize his parents are violent Muslim extremists? What does Ronald Reagan have to do with Islam?

Aw boo hoo, you lost the argument now you have to move the goalposts? First, you asked me to prove how blocking out Muslims would help, and I proved it to you. Now, that isn't satisfactory: Now you reframe so banning Muslims in the future is only helpful and relevant if it would prevent killing a by a Muslim that already occured.

 

Suffering from short term memory loss again? You brought up the Orlando shooting in this thread. I asked what relevance did it have, and you said this wouldn't have happened if Trump's proposal was in place. So answer the question, how wouldn't have this happened if Trump's proposal was in place?

Why are you trying to change the subject and how is this relevant to Trump's proposal?

Did I say anything about Islam and Ronald Reagan in the same sentence?

Source

#ThankyouReagan

How would BLOCKING OUT what is already in, help? I'm speaking specifically about Omar, who was an American citizen. Trump's proposal doesn't affect him in the slightest. So what exactly did you prove?

 

You didn't say, which is why I am asking you why you are mentioning Ronald Reagan in a thread about banning Muslims.

So again, What does Ronald Reagan have to do with this topic?

_________________

So tell me, why should Omar Mateen's violent Muslim parents have been allowed to immigrate?

Why are you so insistent that people who are openly violent towards gays, women, and infidels should be allowed to take over countries that offer the freedom of separation of church and state?

 

Why are you modifying my posts? I never said what you are quoting.

You still didn't answer the question.

How would Trump's temporary ban stop this incident from happening? You keep saying his parents wouldn't be allowed to immigrate, but they immigrated over 30 years ago under Ronald Reagan, it wasn't recent.

Ronald Reagan was the president when Omar's parents came to America.

Again, can you just answer the question directly? Look here, I'll start if off for you.

"This Orlando mass shooting wouldn't have happened if Trump's proposal was in place because..."

What does this have to do with your assertion that this mass shooting wouldn't have happened if Trump's proposal was in place?

 

I didn't modify anything. I put my argument in, since you won't address my argument. You keep "PARAPHRASING" and "YOU'RE SAYING" which is a fucking sorry bitch ass excuse of a straw man. Quit strawmanning and calling it "PARAPHRASING".

I put in big bold underlined words "QUOTE ME", but instead you say "Well, paraphrasing what you are basically saying..."

Saying "You do realize?" is not an argument or a rebuttal. It's a rhetorical question. Nothing about this discussion has anything to do with who was president in the 80s.

This Orlando mass shooting wouldn't have happened if Muslims were not allowed to immigrate to the United States because Omar's parents are Taliban supporting Muslims who immigrated to the United States from Afghanistan. If Muslims could not immigrate to the United States, Omar would not have been born a US citizen.

 

For the love of God, stop trying to bury your argument.

When I paraphrased your argument, I didn't quote it, and before I even began to paraphrase it, I announced it. You did none of those things, and immigration was never part of my argument, so again, another dead point.

Did I say it was an argument? I was stating a fact. Ronald Reagan was the president during that time. You clearly didn't realize this because Trump's proposal was not a factor during that time.

Why did you remove Trump's proposal from the equation? That was your argument entirely. The backpedaling is real.

 

I didn't tell you PARAPHRASE ME. I told you QUOTE ME because I'm not defending whatever argument you make up for me to defend, I'm defending the argument I've already written.

So STOP STRAWMANNING and ADDRESS MY ARGUMENT, QUOTED, NOT PARAPHRASED.

So now that I realize Ronald Reagan was president in the 80's, how does my newfound realization of 80's presidents relate to this discussion? I already told you that "You do realize?" is not an argument, it's a rhetorical question.

Trump's proposal is a Muslim immigration ban. I am using direct and clear language so that you must use direct quotes instead of "PARAPHRASING" with feeble strawmans.

 

I don't need your permission to paraphrase your argument, but you don't see me being obscure about modifying your posts. Stop acting like a child.

Where is the strawman?

You said if Trump's temporary proposal was in place, they couldn't have immigrated. Forgetting your own arguments?

Stop trying to bury the argument you started with. You said if Trump's proposal was in place, this wouldn't have happened. I need an explanation for this.

 

Yes, if there was a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, they would not have been able to immigrate. This is true and valid.

First you want me to stop repeating the argument, now you want me to stop burying it? I'll repeat it again since you now accuse me of burying it:

The explanation is if there was a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, Omar's parents would not have been able to immigrate. This is true and valid.