Federal Judge Rules Against Blocking Travel Ban EO

[Bodakane]

Oh no, whatever will I do without the stellar wisdom you impart.

I assume you'll keep furiously masturbating with the flag everytime soemone shoots at a Muslim.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me get this right.
You never said I was scared of them. But you said I don't want them here because I'm scared of them?

Where did I state that I don't want "them" here because I'm scared of them? Surely you can find that quote for us then.
Remember now, I already proved there was no reason for people to fear Muslims in an earlier post.
We shall be waiting on this nonexistent quote of mine.
Have a wonderful day.

Reading is hard I know.

I never said YOU SAID you were scared of Muslims.

I said you're scared of Muslims, whether you actually have the nuts to say it or not.

[Spectral]

WTF are you even talking about?

You started this by saying the ban was about it the practicality of traveling to certain countries when the ban is all about stopping people coming here form those countries. Yopu then decided to call that semantics, when that's LITERALLY the stupidest thing you've implied at this point. Now you're trying to further play a semantics game.

This country was built on immigrants. Fact. I never sai there should be no restrictions, also fact. One mroe fact for your smenatics playing ass, there are other restrictions besides straight up bans.

The quibble about whether it's a travel ban or immigrant ban is what I referred to as nitpicking - it's not relevant to the point that people have a rational interest in determining where people flow into their country from.

The "built by immigrants" rhetoric is pretty stupid when applied to whether Somali immigration (or travel) is a net plus for the modern United States.

[Bodakane]

The quibble about whether it's a travel ban or immigrant ban is what I referred to as nitpicking - it's not relevant to the point that people have a rational interest in determining where people flow into their country from.

The "built by immigrants" rhetoric is pretty stupid when applied to whether Somali immigration (or travel) is a net plus for the modern United States.

The bold is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in awhile.

You cannot be serious......

[Spectral]

The bold is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in awhile.

You cannot be serious......

I am serious and don't call me Shirley.

Anyway, you don't really seem to have an argument, just an extremist position and a lot of sputtering.

[Allybeboba]

I assume you'll keep furiously masturbating with the flag everytime soemone shoots at a Muslim.

- - - Updated - - -



Reading is hard I know.

I never said YOU SAID you were scared of Muslims.

I said you're scared of Muslims, whether you actually have the nuts to say it or not.

I am asking you to prove it.

I have already proved that I am not.

[drakensoul]

Let me get this right.
You never said I was scared of them. But you said I don't want them here because I'm scared of them?

Where did I state that I don't want "them" here because I'm scared of them? Surely you can find that quote for us then.
Remember now, I already proved there was no reason for people to fear Muslims in an earlier post.
We shall be waiting on this nonexistent quote of mine.
Have a wonderful day.

Are you trying to say something? I haven't seen you actually make a point yet; you tend to spend pages swearing you have no side and have no opinion and that people are misrepresenting you, often calling them demeaning things like "little one" while suggesting you don't insult people because that's 'not how you are,' then saying "Have a wonderful day" after being condescending and sarcastic which, itself, is an insult. I'd make the suggestion that you look up pragmatic vs. semantic meaning, because you don't seem to grasp that you are being insulting and are making statements even if you don't use direct words. Negative space and implication are communication mechanisms as much as anything else. Maybe you just enjoy trolling and this is you preferred method, but on the off-chance you actually don't realize this is what you're doing: It is.

Anyway, he simply said that if you don't want Muslims in this country, or if you want to block Muslims from entering, that is a stance based on the arguably false notion that they are dangerous or threatening in some way. Much in the past like beliefs about blacks or other minorities. That their entry will result in some negative consequence that you are thus trying to avoid or prevent. Short of saying "JUST BECAUSE!!!!!!" when someone asks you why, that's the only reason you'd have for wanting to block someone from entering the country: because of the perceived threat of a negative consequence of them entering.

If you're fine with Muslims entering the country, then again I'll refer you back to sentence one: Are you trying to say something? Why are you arguing?

If you're not fine with Muslims entering the country, then we're back at square one: Why? Because you want to block a perceived negative outcome from them entering from occurring? That, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept the word applied to it, would be to any reasonable person a fear of Muslims entering and causing negative outcome. Maybe you should look up the definition of fear while you're looking at pragmatism.

And also, the statement that there's no such thing as a moderate practicing Muslim is, if not bigoted, at least severely ill-informed and narrow minded. I work 80 hours a week with two practicing, non-jihadist non-terrorist Muslims every week. I suppose it depends on what you define as "moderate," but I define that as a normal person. This is one short step away from standing on your porch in overalls with a shotgun and greasy hair saying WE DON'T NEED NONE OF YER KIND HERE!!!!

As has been proven time and again throughout history, intolerance of people because of <insert X perceived difference> is almost always based in fear and misunderstanding, and is almost always overcome with time and knowledge. People can be all spectrum of people, regardless of skin color, race, gender, etc. The confederacy is dead.

[Bodakane]

I am serious and don't call me Shirley.

Anyway, you don't really seem to have an argument, just a an extremist position and a lot of sputtering.

There's nothing extreme about my stance, I'm against the ban.

You, OTOH, have decided that the ban is about something entirely different and pointing that out to you is somehow...semantics.

- - - Updated - - -

I am asking you to prove it.

I have already proved that I am not.

You've proven nothing.

I have though.

Pay attention, this time....

If you are in favor of the ban, then the ONLY reason is because you're scared. You fear Muslims. There is no other reason.

I haven't heard a single other reason form anyone....that doesn't involve fear. Not one.

So, to recap, since you struggle with reading....

being in favor of the ban = being scared of Muslims.

[Auxora]

"These two past decisions keep the order at bay." - most important part of the OP post. The title is misleading, nothing has been overturned or changed. It's just that it wasn't a 3rd ruling to stop the travel ban. The appeal on those isn't even being heard until May, so nothing is changing about the ban being blocked until then. Just wanted to point that out to anyone who missed that in the first couple pages.

[drakensoul]

"These two past decisions keep the order at bay." - most important part of the OP post. The title is misleading, nothing has been overturned or changed. It's just that it wasn't a 3rd ruling to stop the travel ban. The appeal on those isn't even being heard until May, so nothing is changing about the ban being blocked until then. Just wanted to point that out to anyone who missed that in the first couple pages.

The only one who missed it was the OP.

[LaserChild9]

Did I state I supported it?

The list of countries were from the prior administration not from the current one.

And trump couldn't change that? Obamacare was from the previous administration too and trump is determined to change that but he cant a change a simple list that "Obama" wrote out? Frankly thats a terrible excuse, the fact the in his 2nd iteration he removed Iraq from the list shows that he has the ability to amend the list, he just chooses not to because he has business in the countries where the ban actually makes a degree of sense.

This isn't what "literally" means in any sense.

In any sense, the country was emphatically not built by MENA immigrants.

That's a moot point, an immigrant is an immigrant regardless of where they are from, how is country of origination relevant in anyway to the fact that America is a country created by immigrants?

[Spectral]

That's a moot point, an immigrant is an immigrant regardless of where they are from, how is country of origination relevant in anyway to the fact that America is a country created by immigrants?

This is the position I'm referring to as extremist - completely failing to distinguish between different nations of origin and all the attendant cultural baggage that comes with that is obviously silly, yet here we are. Forgive me for not being impressed by the argument that since Irish people did a bunch of labor in the 19th century, we have to let Somalis into the country in 2017.

Your claim is also just false. The United States wasn't created by immigrants for the most part.

[drakensoul]

This is the position I'm referring to as extremist - completely failing to distinguish between different nations of origin and all the attendant cultural baggage that comes with that is obviously silly, yet here we are. Forgive me for not being impressed by the argument that since Irish people did a bunch of labor in the 19th century, we have to let Somalis into the country in 2017.

Your claim is also just false. The United States wasn't created by immigrants for the most part.

Intentionally ignoring the role immigrants of all types from all countries, including Muslims, have played in the development of this nation since its inception by creating a ridiculous (read: reductio ad absurdum) example in order to support an argument and position that you have wholly invented for yourself isn't debate or argument. It's straw.

Refuting the common-sense knowledge that non-native Americans have played a large role in the development of this nation is also a logical fallacy.

That's three in a short paragraph. For what? To make a glitzy-looking fake argument?

[LaserChild9]

people have a rational interest in determining where people flow into their country from.

Did the Native Americans get a choice where people flowed into their country from when modern american ancestors turned up and took their land?

[Spectral]

Intentionally ignoring the role immigrants of all types from all countries, including Muslims, have played in the development of this nation since its inception in order to support an argument and position have you have wholly invented for yourself isn't debate or argument. It's straw.

Obviously this isn't straw - the argument is about whether the United States has any valid or rational basis to restrict immigration and/or travel from certain countries in 2017. The repeated mantra to support the idea that the United States has no such valid or rational basis for restriction of immigration and/or travel is that the country was "built by immigrants". It's an absurd argument, but people keep trotting it out.

- - - Updated - - -

Did the Native Americans get a choice where people flowed into their country from when modern american ancestors turned up and took their land?

Do you think an American in 2017 should find this a compelling argument for not controlling flow of immigration? That the lesson that should be taken from 16th century European colonization is that the hosts really have nothing to worry about?

[drakensoul]

Obviously this isn't straw - the argument is about whether the United States has any valid or rational basis to restrict immigration and/or travel from certain countries in 2017. The repeated mantra to support the idea that the United States has no such valid or rational basis for restriction of immigration and/or travel is that the country was "built by immigrants". It's an absurd argument, but people keep trotting it out.

Shifting goal posts is a fourth. I'll repeat it on the off chance you honestly misunderstood it: The straw-man argument, which you also included reductio ad absurdum in, is that you shouldn't owe anything to Somali's since it was only the Irish that built the country.

To then shift to a completely different argument and say "this isn't straw" is, from sentence one, moving the goal post. Another logical fallacy.

I don't have a Ph.D. in American history, but I imagine that if I did I'd be able to link you to veritable lists of all of the accomplishments and achievements that were the result, wholly or in part, of collaboration with immigrants of all ilk, including Muslims. So instead of using a reverse corollary to suggest why people should care about country of origin (i.e.: because not ALL immigrants participated in the WHOLE process, implying they thus have no stake here), why don't you try making an argument for the restriction of immigration... I.e.: provide support for your point.

Or fuck it, do what you want... it's MMO-C, why use actual thought process? WIRETAP!!!!!!

[Spectral]

Shifting goal posts is a fourth. I'll repeat it on the off chance you honestly misunderstood it: The straw-man argument, which you also included reductio ad absurdum in, is that you shouldn't owe anything to Somali's since it was only the Irish that built the country.

To then shift to a completely different argument and say "this isn't straw" is, from sentence one, moving the goal post. Another logical fallacy.

Obviously I don't think the country is primarily built by the Irish - these are example groups with the takeaway point being that the United States owes nothing to Somalis.

People's argument, as near as I can tell, is that the United States has no valid or rational basis for restriction of immigration and/or travel because the United States was "built by immigrants". If I'm misinterpreting people's argument, could you put their argument in words that you find more compelling? If this isn't the argument, I don't know why repetition of the "nation of immigrants" mantra is even on topic.

[drakensoul]

Obviously I don't think the country is primarily built by the Irish - these are example groups with the takeaway point being that the United States owes nothing to Somalis.

People's argument, as near as I can tell, is that the United States has no valid or rational basis for restriction of immigration and/or travel because the United States was "built by immigrants". If I'm misinterpreting people's argument, could you put their argument in words that you find more compelling? If this isn't the argument, I don't know why repetition of the "nation of immigrants" mantra is even on topic.

My interpretation of the other side is that they're rejecting your argument that people should be restricted simply because they are immigrants, correctly responding with the fact that the country was built by immigrants.

The obvious next step would be to actually bolster the argument for blocking immigration by using logic and fact to describe why it needs to be blocked. In other words: Since the other side views your argument as simply fear-of-immigrants, perhaps you should try to provide an argument with something else behind it. The only way to do that logically would be to be able to demonstrate: X group has committed Y crime, as evidenced HERE in a recurring manner, thus X should be blocked. Unfortunately for this argument there are no data supporting that the seven listed countries have done any such thing.

So it's all in vain, because all of the arguments for banning so far boil down to fear of immigrants. And fear isn't a logical argument.

[LaserChild9]

Your claim is also just false. The United States wasn't created by immigrants for the most part.

This is just absurd! There is a reason that there is an entire group of people called "Native" Americans, funnily enough it's because their ancestors were born on the continent of American and didn't sale from across the oceans or "emigrate" to settle there.

[Spectral]

My interpretation of the other side is that they're rejecting your argument that people should be restricted simply because they are immigrants, correctly responding with the fact that the country was built by immigrants.

The obvious next step would be to actually bolster the argument for blocking immigration by using logic and fact to describe why it needs to be blocked. In other words: Since the other side views your argument as simply fear-of-immigrants, perhaps you should try to provide an argument with something else behind it. The only way to do that logically would be to be able to demonstrate: X group has committed Y crime, as evidenced HERE in a recurring manner, thus X should be blocked. Unfortunately for this argument there are no data supporting that the seven listed countries have done any such thing.

So it's all in vain.

I haven't actually made any arguments regarding the object-level policy here other than that:

While I think the restriction is typically pointless bureaucratic bullshit...

I agree with Didactic that this particular policy is stupid and cruel.

My quibble isn't with regard to the specifics of the policy, it's with the notion that there's no valid reason to impose restrictions based on nation of origin. Nation of origin matters; here's a quick article that summarizes why with supporting data.

- - - Updated - - -

This is just absurd! There is a reason that there is an entire group of people called "Native" Americans, funnily enough it's because their ancestors were born on the continent of American and didn't sale from across the oceans or "emigrate" to settle there.

Just to be clear then, George Washington goes down in your book as an immigrant?

[LaserChild9]

Obviously this isn't straw - the argument is about whether the United States has any valid or rational basis to restrict immigration and/or travel from certain countries in 2017. The repeated mantra to support the idea that the United States has no such valid or rational basis for restriction of immigration and/or travel is that the country was "built by immigrants". It's an absurd argument, but people keep trotting it out.

- - - Updated - - -


Do you think an American in 2017 should find this a compelling argument for not controlling flow of immigration? That the lesson that should be taken from 16th century European colonization is that the hosts really have nothing to worry about?

No the lesson you should take away is that you are a hypocrite. Immigration was good for your family and your country back then, but now you have become xenophobic you must close your borders and keep out the evil evil people that aren't actually evil and haven't actually ever attacked your country in any way just because some orange twat in a wig is good at riling up the small minded.

Immigrants from those countries on the list that haven't actually done anything wrong(specifically all of them), they just want a chance to chase the american dream like your ancestors because at the moment they are living in miserable places torn by war and other nasty things.