Actually, considering it effects EVERYONE in those countries, regardless of religion, and considering it is only a TINY FRACTION of the worlds Muslim population that's actually effected by it, I think it's intellectually dishonest to refer to it as a "Muslim ban". It clearly isn't, and that term's used only for provocation and headlines.
I'm not even arguing a case for or against the executive order (personally I think it's reactionary, unnecessary and disruptive to too many peoples lives) I'm just saying that calling it a "Muslim Ban" is factually wrong, and just a way to kill any opposition or discussion by making it "racists vs non-racists" again; the go-to of EVERY liberal debate these days.
BASIC CAMPFIRE for WARCHIEF UK Prime Minister!
Moderation talks are to be directed at a global, not discussed on the forum.
Trump doesn't have business with them.
Trump called for a Muslim ban several times, his people are saying he asked for a Muslim ban, he has said Christians will get special treatment yet you keep denying what is right in front of you. I give up I would think you Trumpist would be proud that your lord and master is delivering on yet another promise.A ban on Muslims would obviously include those countries, but it doesn't, therefore it is NOT a ban on Muslims.
Last edited by Draco-Onis; 2017-01-30 at 12:05 AM.
I guess it depends on how you want to focus your pragmatism.
If 99% of the people affected are Muslim, and they are, then it's intellectually valid to say "This targets Muslims." And if 99% of every new person added to the ban is again a Muslim, it stays valid to say "This is targeting Muslims." The fact that there are other Muslims that haven't yet been added to it doesn't negate the fact that virtually everyone affected is a Muslim.
Just like if you have a law banning gay marriage in the USA it is intellectually valid to say "This targets gays." It may not target every gay person on the planet, but it is targeting gays.
If I start murdering purple bunnies you would say "He's targeting purple bunnies." You wouldn't say "No he's not, some purple bunnies are still alive!" Because that would be ludicrous.
To then call it a Muslim ban wouldn't be inaccurate. But no, it doesn't target every Muslim on the planet. Might he if he had the ability to do that? Perhaps. But that's irrelevant to calling it a Muslim ban.
Last edited by drakensoul; 2017-01-30 at 12:14 AM.
Your group doesn't give him that opportunity. They jump on him at every turn, good and bad decisions alike.
If he defends them on his own basis, then it simply flies above people's head. When he use authority figures that people liked, he get called as being unable to stand on his own.
It's not that he can't, it's that your group won't let him. The decisions were already clear before Obama was put in the discussion. It was the media's and the irrational anti-Trump group that simply decided to put on a blindfold and attack.
Google Diversity Memo
Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA
Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
[...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..
Any time you want to come back with actual facts to support your argument, you're welcome to engage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/u...der-trump.html
Here is the order. Please point to the exact section where it specifically bans "muslims". I'll wait.
Last edited by Spunt; 2017-01-30 at 12:21 AM. Reason: Corrected the link.
Sylvanas Windrunner For Warchief 2016!!#NoFlyNoSub, #NoFlyNoLegion, #NoFlyNoBuy, #BringBackFlight
Google Diversity Memo
Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA
Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
[...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..
Especially when the previous president just stopped visas being issues.
The issue here is that he is stopping entry to valid active visas, green cards, permanent residents, and to some citizens of ALL countries including the US.
Bit by bit this complete cesspool of a executive order is being whittled away - apparently 'permanent residency' will be a positive factor in their vetting at the air port.
Hear that - a positive factor.
Not only is Trump dong the WRONG thing, he is doing it incompetently .. but that's to be expected for an obviously mentally ill man.
Talking about LEGAL people here.
Challenge Mode : Play WoW like my disability has me play:
You will need two people, Brian MUST use the mouse for movement/looking and John MUST use the keyboard for casting, attacking, healing etc.
Briand and John share the same goal, same intentions - but they can't talk to each other, however they can react to each other's in game activities.
Now see how far Brian and John get in WoW.
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
It is not a muslim ban. Nowhere in the EO does it say Muslim, Islam, or Islamist. Their is no ban on Indonesia, Pakistan, India, or other countries where their are significantly higher populations of muslims then the countries effected.
It is a temporary suspension of immigration.
Individuals deemed to be of national interest and religious minorities who are facing persecution are exempt. This includes Sufi's, Alawites, and Ahmadiyya muslims who are massacred by Sunni's, Shia's, and ISIS. These countries were not hand picked by Trump at the drop of a hat, they were in large picked by DHS a few years ago under the Obama admin with the latter being chosen by up to date intelligence.