Gutless Republican Cowards

[RandomGuy]

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_large/public/thumbnails/image/2016/09/20/09/trump-jr.jpg

http://crooksandliars.com/files/images/16/09/csxwu5axgaef_b6.jpg


“If I gave you a bowl of Skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?”
“Are the other Skittles human lives?”
“What?”
“Like, is there a good chance, a*really good chance,*I would be saving someone from a war zone and probably their life if I ate a Skittle?”
“Well sure. But the point …”
“I would eat the Skittles.”
“Ok,*well, the point is …”
“I would GORGE myself on Skittles. I would eat every single Skittle I could find. I would STUFF myself with Skittles. And when I found the poison Skittle and died, I would make sure to leave behind a legacy of children and of friends who also ate skittle after Skittle until there were no Skittles to be eaten. And each person who found the poison Skittle we would weep for. We would weep for their loss, for their sacrifice, and for the fact that they did not let themselves succumb to fear but made the world a better place by eating Skittles.
Because your REAL question,*the one you hid behind an*inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor, is:*IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND TERRIFIED CHILDREN?
And what kind of monster would think the answer to that question*is yes?”

It takes Samantha Bee to bravely go where Republican "leaders" are far too chickenshit to go:

s5y70oKbAKY
JgfL8PRTLns


Shocker. Refugees need help.

Republican leaders have ceded any moral authority that they have to give in to craven cowardice, in the face of doing the obvious, right thing.

[TeyshaBlue]

Eat the skittle. That's bravery. Ranting on the internet, not so much.

[DarrinS]

Isn't the Skittles story a week old already?

[UZER]

So we can't call bad people bad apples anymore?

[Splits]

but but but guise.... TSA has a scared :cry :cry :cry

his guns aren't big enough to deal with all these :cry refugees :cry

:cry we don't know where they're coming from after 2 years of investigation :cry

:cry :cry :cry:cry :cry :cry:cry :cry :cry:cry :cry :cry:cry :cry :cry:cry :cry :cry

:cry so scared :cry

[SnakeBoy]

Isn't the Skittles story a week old already?

Yeah but RG is behind on his outrage list

[Splits]

:cry I'm a huge pussy :cry

:cry someone save me :cry

:cry my pussy hurts :cry

[SnakeBoy]

:lol I inadvertently upset Splits

Have some skittles Splits, you'll feel better

[SnakeBoy]

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a8/f7/f2/a8f7f2722ade85abe36b4e3d35f6fc7a.jpg

[Splits]

:lol I inadvertently upset Splits

Have some skittles Splits, you'll feel better

How's your pussy feeling?

[pgardn]

So we can't call bad people bad apples anymore?

Rotting or "bad" apples give off ethylene (ripening hormone in plants) and are often fungal/bacteria ridden making the rest of the surrounding apples likely to succumb to rotting as well. Skittles don't rot.

So no. I'm thinking people don't like the analogy as it does not contain the depth of thought bad apple does. For more food science refer to Good Eats.

For more candy related levity read the following:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/28/aleppo-two-hospitals-bombed-out-of-service-syria-airstrikes

[baseline bum]

I don't want us accepting a ton of Syrian refugees. I mean it sucks what they're going through and it is absolutely our fault because of Bush's war, but I don't want us just accepting desperate people. Anyone given legal status to be in the US should want to integrate into our society and culture. I think we should also only accept people with skillsets that would allow them good jobs to raise their kids in good homes. The last thing we need is to bring people from Syria into poverty here and then their kids become disillusioned with the United States and become great targets for Islamic terrorists to recruit for lone wolf attacks through social media. I know it sounds heartless and it probably is, but I don't want to keep getting fucked by Bush 7.5 years after he left office and beyond.

[RandomGuy]

Eat the skittle. That's bravery. Ranting on the internet, not so much.

I would eat them.

Of course, if one does the math, as noted elsewhere, it is like three in an amount of skittles large enough to fill 1.5 Olympic swimming pools.

That doesn't take much bravery, which is kinda the point, isn't it.

Why aren't you calling out these people as cowards? I am going to find out if any Democrats have been harping on this and doing so.

I might even go so far as to find out if I can help sponsor any. Seems like the decent thing to do, after hopefully shaming others into acting.

[RandomGuy]

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a8/f7/f2/a8f7f2722ade85abe36b4e3d35f6fc7a.jpg

Ok, that is actually funny, in context. :tu

[FromWayDowntown]

All Lives Matter*

*-does not apply to Syrian refugees

[ducks]

you make a safe zone in the middle east and put them there. if you ask them that is what they want anyhow

[DarrinS]

All Lives Matter*

*-does not apply to Syrian refugees


*Black Lives Matter

*-does not apply to fetuses


See, I can hijack an unrelated issue, too.

[FromWayDowntown]

*Black Lives Matter

*-does not apply to fetuses


See, I can hijack an unrelated issue, too.

Well done!

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't want us accepting a ton of Syrian refugees. I mean it sucks what they're going through and it is absolutely our fault because of Bush's war, but I don't want us just accepting desperate people. Anyone given legal status to be in the US should want to integrate into our society and culture. I think we should also only accept people with skillsets that would allow them good jobs to raise their kids in good homes. The last thing we need is to bring people from Syria into poverty here and then their kids become disillusioned with the United States and become great targets for Islamic terrorists to recruit for lone wolf attacks through social media. I know it sounds heartless and it probably is, but I don't want to keep getting fucked by Bush 7.5 years after he left office and beyond.

X1000

well said

[TheGreatYacht]

How did I know that old faggot DarrinS (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042) was going to be here doing damage control?

:cry but but I'm neutral :cry
:cry I know you're racist but what am I :cry

[boutons_deux]

"keep getting fucked by Bush 7.5 years after he left office and beyond."

America and the planet will keep getting fucked by dubya, dickhead, BigOil for decades, as the Middle East continues to fester, and Muslim terrorists go after the West for fucking up their countries.

And don't forget the many $100Bs wasted on caring for Ms of messed up vets for the next 30+ years.

NEVER FORGET the shit the Repugs have criminally visited on the planet for BigOil profits.

[DarrinS]

How did I know that old faggot DarrinS (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042) was going to be here doing damage control?

:cry but but I'm neutral :cry
:cry I know you're racist but what am I :cry


That rent free thingy

[RandomGuy]

*Black Lives Matter

*-does not apply to fetuses


See, I can hijack an unrelated issue, too.

:clap

[RandomGuy]

I don't want us accepting a ton of Syrian refugees. I mean it sucks what they're going through and it is absolutely our fault because of Bush's war, but I don't want us just accepting desperate people. Anyone given legal status to be in the US should want to integrate into our society and culture. I think we should also only accept people with skillsets that would allow them good jobs to raise their kids in good homes. The last thing we need is to bring people from Syria into poverty here and then their kids become disillusioned with the United States and become great targets for Islamic terrorists to recruit for lone wolf attacks through social media. I know it sounds heartless and it probably is, but I don't want to keep getting fucked by Bush 7.5 years after he left office and beyond.

Our country is so huge that assimilation is pretty much inevitable, unless you completely cloister yourself like the Amish.

My chief concern is that we are turning our backs on 4,000,000+ desperate people who need help.

As noted in the videos in the OP, these are largely women and children.

As for skillsets, the professional class was among the first to leave. Doctors, lawyers, investment types, etc. There is no shortage of that that we should welcome, although I wouldn't want to limit it to just those lucky enough to have gotten an education in a system like Syria that openly favored some groups over others for religious/ethnic reasons.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

foreigners in general shouldn't be allowed in here. So goddamn sick of my TEXAS office smelling like month old fucking curry. Argggggggghhhhhhh

[RandomGuy]

foreigners in general shouldn't be allowed in here.

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/S/c/H/6/against-immigration-leaving.jpg

[baseline bum]

Our country is so huge that assimilation is pretty much inevitable, unless you completely cloister yourself like the Amish.

My chief concern is that we are turning our backs on 4,000,000+ desperate people who need help.

As noted in the videos in the OP, these are largely women and children.

As for skillsets, the professional class was among the first to leave. Doctors, lawyers, investment types, etc. There is no shortage of that that we should welcome, although I wouldn't want to limit it to just those lucky enough to have gotten an education in a system like Syria that openly favored some groups over others for religious/ethnic reasons.

I don't want to see Muslim ghettos popping up, which is inevitable if you're going to take in uneducated people who are going to cling to their backwards religion and not have any reasonable chance to be successful in this country with how bad its job market is for unskilled labor.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/S/c/H/6/against-immigration-leaving.jpg

that's among the stupidest arguments in existence, tbh... so tell me, friend, how many years was the United States of America in existence when the nomadic N.A.'s ruled these lands?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

I don't want to see Muslim ghettos popping up, which is inevitable if you're going to take in uneducated people who are going to cling to their backwards religion and not have any reasonable chance to be successful in this country with how bad its job market is for unskilled labor.

Too late. Go to Dearborn, MI around one of the Eid's.

[Spurminator]

I don't want to see Muslim ghettos popping up, which is inevitable if you're going to take in uneducated people who are going to cling to their backwards religion and not have any reasonable chance to be successful in this country with how bad its job market is for unskilled labor.

We don't just bring them in and drop them off in the middle of a city to fend for themselves.

[baseline bum]

We don't just bring them in and drop them off in the middle of a city to fend for themselves.

We're not going to drop into middle class jobs and nice homes either.

[Spurminator]

If the concern is the radicalization of Muslims in the US, do you think that is LESS likely to happen if we have a policy of not accepting Muslim refugees? I don't.

[Spurminator]

We're not going to drop into middle class jobs and nice homes either.

We've never done that with any resettlement program that I'm aware of, and so far it's worked fine. We're also not dropping them all off in the same places.

[Chucho]

LOL, Gutless LOLibertards trying to pass the Syria mess off on Dubya, when Obama surpassed Bush's villany in the mid-East about 2 years ago.

[baseline bum]

LOL, Gutless LOLibertards trying to pass the Syria mess off on Dubya, when Obama surpassed Bush's villany in the mid-East about 2 years ago.

LOL retard rightwingers trying to push a revisionist history where Bush somehow isn't responsible for taking out the guy who crushed all that Islamic shit in Iraq and then letting the country fall into a civil war. :lol

[DeadlyDynasty]

It'll be tragic and unsatisfying, but I'm looking forward to scoreboarding some of you libs on the refugee situation a couple years down the road.

[spurraider21]

District 9 imo

[Chucho]

LOL retard rightwingers trying to push a revisionist history where Bush somehow isn't responsible for taking out the guy who crushed all that Islamic shit in Iraq and then letting the country fall into a civil war. :lol

LOL, I didn't say that, but way to dodge the issue. Your Leftist Marxist cocksuckery can't change the fact your President is the same as Dubya. Y'all are the exact same thing y'all claim to hate, but nutless to not admit it.

[baseline bum]

LOL, I didn't say that, but way to dodge the issue. Your Leftist Marxist cocksuckery can't change the fact your President is the same as Dubya. Y'all are the exact same thing y'all claim to hate, but nutless to not admit it.

LOL you did say that when you tried to excuse Bush for this fucking mess. You can fairly blame Obama for lots of shit but taking out Saddam thus leaving a power vacuum for ISIS isn't one of them. Bush's boy Rumsfeld created that power vacuum when they had no plan to stop Iraq from going into civil war after taking Hussein out. LOL revisionist history on Iraq.

[Aztecfan03]

LOL you did say that when you tried to excuse Bush for this fucking mess. You can fairly blame Obama for lots of shit but taking out Saddam thus leaving a power vacuum for ISIS isn't one of them. Bush's boy Rumsfeld created that power vacuum when they had no plan to stop Iraq from going into civil war after taking Hussein out. LOL revisionist history on Iraq.
Who was the one who pulled out of Iraq? That's what left the vacuum. Sure Bush had the plan for it, but that doesn't mean he would have been dumb enough to do it when Iraq wasn't ready.

[baseline bum]

Who was the one who pulled out of Iraq? That's what left the vacuum. Sure Bush had the plan for it, but that doesn't mean he would have been dumb enough to do it when Iraq wasn't ready.

Bush's plan was going there with a small force and thinking they'd be greeted as liberators. Instead it became a terrorist hotbed once he took out Saddam. It was already a lost war, no sense in wasting more American lives there after Bush didn't do shit to stabilize the country he destroyed.

[Spurminator]

It'll be tragic and unsatisfying, but I'm looking forward to scoreboarding some of you libs on the refugee situation a couple years down the road.

I'm sure you will, but you could at least define the parameters of what constitutes victory for your side of the argument.

For example I know the first time one of the 110,000 refugees gets a DUI, Breitbart and Drudge are going to run a week's worth of front page stories on it with pom-poms waving, so let us know specifically what you think will happen and to what degree, and we can all agree on who gets to celebrate when.

In case it's a helpful guide, note that 1 in 12 Americans currently has a felony conviction so shitting our pants when the first of 110,000 commits a felony might be a little silly.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I would eat them.

Of course, if one does the math, as noted elsewhere, it is like three in an amount of skittles large enough to fill 1.5 Olympic swimming pools.

That doesn't take much bravery, which is kinda the point, isn't it.

Why aren't you calling out these people as cowards? I am going to find out if any Democrats have been harping on this and doing so.

I might even go so far as to find out if I can help sponsor any. Seems like the decent thing to do, after hopefully shaming others into acting.

What bravery is there in "maybe" sponsoring one after shaming others to do it first? And what sort of "maybe" sponsor are you even talking about? If you are just talking about donating money that is cowardly chickenshit. Open your doors to your home and take a family in if you want to be "brave".

[ismael-robert]

I'm no expert but I was listening to an expert on the situation and what he said is there are NO Syrian refugees. A refugee is someone with nowhere to go. Syria is surrounded by Muslim nations!

[mingus]

I don't want us accepting a ton of Syrian refugees. I mean it sucks what they're going through and it is absolutely our fault because of Bush's war, but I don't want us just accepting desperate people. Anyone given legal status to be in the US should want to integrate into our society and culture. I think we should also only accept people with skillsets that would allow them good jobs to raise their kids in good homes. The last thing we need is to bring people from Syria into poverty here and then their kids become disillusioned with the United States and become great targets for Islamic terrorists to recruit for lone wolf attacks through social media. I know it sounds heartless and it probably is, but I don't want to keep getting fucked by Bush 7.5 years after he left office and beyond.

The bottom line for me is what is the "potential" for integration for these refugees? If the ones they've accepted/are accepting have shed all their fundamentalist baggage or didn't have any to begin with, then I'm cool with it. But even then I worry because if the communities they're coming into don't want to welcome them, or refugees don't know how to deal with intolerance even on a small level from a few bad apples, then that's a problem.

It's something that has to be done with extreme delicacy.

[mingus]

We've never done that with any resettlement program that I'm aware of, and so far it's worked fine. We're also not dropping them all off in the same places.

Yea, but show me any other group misunderstood and/or feared to the extent that Muslims are & that have the religious tradition that Muslims do. It's a (potentially dangerously) unique group of refugees in that respect.

[Spurminator]

Yea, but show me any other group misunderstood and/or feared to the extent that Muslims are & that have the religious tradition that Muslims do. It's a (potentially dangerously) unique group of refugees in that respect.

How much more dangerous, on average, do you think Syrian refugees are as compared to current US citizens who already live here? (1 in 12 US citizens has a felony charge).

[ismael-robert]

Felony charges vary. Making multiple lil bombs that kill groups of people at single time including children...those are some dangerous skittles. Its not swallow one kill one its one kills like 20

[Spurminator]

Felony charges vary. Making multiple lil bombs that kill groups of people at single time including children...those are some dangerous skittles. Its not swallow one kill one its one kills like 20

What % of the 110,000 refugees being let into this country do you think would potentially do that?

[mingus]

How much more dangerous, on average, do you think Syrian refugees are as compared to current US citizens who already live here? (1 in 12 US citizens has a felony charge).

That's a loaded question. In the sense that I don't know how you measure "danger". Not all forms of danger are created equal. Plus, whether someone is a danger or not isn't dependent on whether they've been charged w/ anything. For example, people who are in the KKK are just as worrisome to me as the people who sympathize with & enable them.

[mingus]

What % of the 110,000 refugees being let into this country do you think would potentially do that?

Here's a question: why these specific refugees? And not the thousands, or millions, of refugees all over the world that in many cases are probably worse off than these Syrian ones?

[DeadlyDynasty]

I'm sure you will, but you could at least define the parameters of what constitutes victory for your side of the argument.

For example I know the first time one of the 110,000 refugees gets a DUI, Breitbart and Drudge are going to run a week's worth of front page stories on it with pom-poms waving, so let us know specifically what you think will happen and to what degree, and we can all agree on who gets to celebrate when.

In case it's a helpful guide, note that 1 in 12 Americans currently has a felony conviction so shitting our pants when the first of 110,000 commits a felony might be a little silly.
I don't care about minor DUI's...bombs and other sleepercell attacks. You know, muslim things. Also would be interested in getting some before&after pics of the neighborhoods they'll be polluting

[Spurminator]

Here's a question: why these specific refugees? And not the thousands, or millions, of refugees all over the world that in many cases are probably worse off than these Syrian ones?

We already have refugee relocation programs for them that, to my knowledge, are in no danger of going away. The controversy is specifically about Syrian refugees.

[mingus]

We already have refugee relocation programs for them that, to my knowledge, are in no danger of going away. The controversy is specifically about Syrian refugees.

I get that.

Like I said, it can/should be done w/ extreme delicacy. Throwing numbers out there to quantify that risk is silly in my opinion. There shouldn't be any extremist/terrorism risk. If there is we're doing it wrong.

[Spurminator]

I get that.

Like I said, it can/should be done w/ extreme delicacy. Throwing numbers out there to quantify that risk is silly in my opinion. There shouldn't be any extremist/terrorism risk. If there is we're doing it wrong.

The numbers are just a directional means of illustrating the scale we're talking about. Nobody wants any risk of a terrorist attack. But I would argue we give ourselves a greater-than 1-in-110,000 chance of a terrorist attack on our turf by clinging to an anti-Muslim isolationist policy than we do through a careful relocation program.

Fundamentally, if the resettlement program creates goodwill while also bringing in better people than what we currently have (which is why I threw out 1 in 12 are felons - under no circumstance would I expect resettled refugees would be felons at anywhere NEAR that rate), that's good for the country.

[DarrinS]

The skittles are already here, tbh

[mingus]

The numbers are just a directional means of illustrating the scale we're talking about. Nobody wants any risk of a terrorist attack. But I would argue we give ourselves a greater-than 1-in-110,000 chance of a terrorist attack on our turf by clinging to an anti-Muslim isolationist policy than we do through a careful relocation program.

Fundamentally, if the resettlement program creates goodwill while also bringing in better people than what we currently have (which is why I threw out 1 in 12 are felons - under no circumstance would I expect resettled refugees would be felons at anywhere NEAR that rate), that's good for the country.

It's not only the attacks though. And that's what I explained in an earlier post. It's fundamentalism/extremism. I don't want any of that Sharia bullshit, whether it manifests itself as violence or as sympathy.

And the whole anti-isolationist policy is IMO unfounded. Explain to me how resettling refugees helps lessen terrorism, extremism etc. If anything it's our Western influence that has worsened that since a great number of people in the ME think we're infidels. They see our welcoming gesture as an affront, conversion of their people to a corrupt culture.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It'll be tragic and unsatisfying, but I'm looking forward to scoreboarding some of you libs on the refugee situation a couple years down the road.

They've been coming in for the past two years already.

So far the scoreboard is preemptively busting/deporting a couple for jihadist language last year.

One caveat of the conservative fearmongering is hypervigilance in surveillance. It's not like they are going to be able to join flight schools and buy fertilizer by the truckload and its going to be missed.

[Spurminator]

It's not only the attacks though. And that's what I explained in an earlier post. It's fundamentalism/extremism. I don't want any of that Sharia bullshit, whether it manifests itself as violence or as sympathy.

And the whole anti-isolationist policy is IMO unfounded. Explain to me how resettling refugees helps lessen terrorism, extremism etc. If anything it's our Western influence that has worsened that since a great number of people in the ME think we're infidels. They see our welcoming gesture as an affront, conversion of their people to a corrupt culture.

The primary strategy of radical Islamists is to pit Muslims against the Western world through propaganda that paints the West as an active enemy of Muslims. While banning Syrian refugees over fears of radicalist tendencies isn't the only brush they can paint that picture with, it's certainly one of them.

[mingus]

The primary strategy of radical Islamists is to pit Muslims against the Western world through propaganda that paints the West as an active enemy of Muslims. While banning Syrian refugees over fears of radicalist tendencies isn't the only brush they can paint that picture with, it's certainly one of them.

I'm not even convinced they use it as a brush. And if they do, it's of virtual no consequence. They'll couch it some other way so that it fits into Islam, which is where they get all their propaganda from. Millions of Muslims have lived & were accepted here in the West since before 9/11, and it didn't mean a damn thing as far as that goes.

I'm for taking in refugees fwiw. But I sure as hell don't have to be an advocate of Islam or believe in a pipe dream that it not doing so would further widen the West-ME divide. Because ultimately it takes away from the greater point, which is that Islam, as it's practiced throughout the ME, Africa, and as far as the Philippines is in most cases antiquated and a cancer that breeds hate & intolerance.

[RandomGuy]

that's among the stupidest arguments in existence, tbh... so tell me, friend, how many years was the United States of America in existence when the nomadic N.A.'s ruled these lands?

Why is it a bad argument? Europeans were not the first humans here. Railing against immigrants seems a bit hypocritical.

The answer to your nonsensical question is zero. How is your question relevant? Is the problem of immigration dependant on the existence of a nation? Again, there are tribes that would disagree.

Although if you want to take that route there were nations here before the USA, that were swept aside.

[RandomGuy]

Bush's plan was going there with a small force and thinking they'd be greeted as liberators. Instead it became a terrorist hotbed once he took out Saddam. It was already a lost war, no sense in wasting more American lives there after Bush didn't do shit to stabilize the country he destroyed.

IT was very predictable.

What country does the following describe:

A totalitarian police state, formed as a country roughly after world war I, that encompasses multiple religions and ethnicities that, prior to the police state, were actively killing each either in sectarian bloodshed. The police state kept a lid on the tensions, then the police state was removed, and the groups were suddenly free to kill each other, which they started doing almost immediately.

[RandomGuy]

What bravery is there in "maybe" sponsoring one after shaming others to do it first? And what sort of "maybe" sponsor are you even talking about? If you are just talking about donating money that is cowardly chickenshit. Open your doors to your home and take a family in if you want to be "brave".

Don't have the house to be able to take in an entire family.

If I can find someone within a reasonable distance, to be able to do something meaningful, I will. Mentoring, advice, and whatever social network I can provide, with financial assistance if needed. An investment.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/28/491715836/the-10-000th-syrian-refugee-is-set-to-arrive-in-the-u-s-this-week

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/08/28/ap_16241353477071_custom-9fe8551377430fc847978be9843a3f950013fbbc-s800-c85.jpg
Five members of the Jouriyeh family, who are Syrian refugees headed to the U.S. from Jordan this week as part of a resettlement program.
Raad Adayleh/AP


Haven't really looked into it yet. Sorry if whatever plans I have are not to your timeline.

[RandomGuy]

As U.S. Politicians Shun Syrian Refugees, Religious Groups Embrace Them


http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/08/09/_img_7678-edit-b918a9091c8108bfaef81a39753c2b434c4f69e3-s800-c85.jpg
Najla cooks for Syria Day at Global Grace Café at the Reformed Church of Highland Park in New Jersey. Najla is from Syria and arrived in the U.S. 10 months ago with her husband and daughter after the United Arab Emirates canceled a residency permit, ending her job at an insurance company.
Deborah Amos/NPR


When 31 governors called for a ban on Syrian refugees coming into the U.S. after last November's terrorist attacks in Paris, it united faith-based communities across the country. They are challenging the wave of opposition to these refugees by taking a leading role in resettling them.

"If they didn't have the churches and synagogues providing what they do, this system would collapse," says Jennifer Quigley, referring to the federal resettlement program that is now under attack from Congress and many governors.

Quigley is a strategist for refugee protection with Human Rights First, an advocacy group that has pressed the administration to increase Syrian resettlement from the pledged goal of 10,000 in 2016 to 100,000 in fiscal year 2017.

[TeyshaBlue]

Damn Christians and their flaky religion.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Why is it a bad argument? Europeans were not the first humans here. Railing against immigrants seems a bit hypocritical.

The answer to your nonsensical question is zero. How is your question relevant? Is the problem of immigration dependant on the existence of a nation? Again, there are tribes that would disagree.

Although if you want to take that route there were nations here before the USA, that were swept aside.

There were nomadic tribes you brainwashed liberal moron :lol

[RandomGuy]

There were nomadic tribes you brainwashed liberal moron :lol

So if they were just nomadic tribes they deserved slaughter?

What are you trying to say here?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

So if they were just nomadic tribes they deserved slaughter?

What are you trying to say here?

Your posts reek of brainwashing from schools, teachers, professors... America was great when it was the parents raising the children, not the state and the idealogue indoctrinators in the schools.

[RandomGuy]

foreigners in general shouldn't be allowed in here. So goddamn sick of my TEXAS office smelling like month old fucking curry. Argggggggghhhhhhh


http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/S/c/H/6/against-immigration-leaving.jpg


that's among the stupidest arguments in existence, tbh... so tell me, friend, how many years was the United States of America in existence when the nomadic N.A.'s ruled these lands?


Why is it a bad argument? Europeans were not the first humans here. Railing against immigrants seems a bit hypocritical.

The answer to your nonsensical question is zero. How is your question relevant? Is the problem of immigration dependant on the existence of a nation? Again, there are tribes that would disagree.

Although if you want to take that route there were nations here before the USA, that were swept aside.


There were nomadic tribes you brainwashed liberal moron :lol


So if they were just nomadic tribes they deserved slaughter?

What are you trying to say here?


Your posts reek of brainwashing from schools, teachers, professors... America was great when it was the parents raising the children, not the state and the idealogue indoctrinators in the schools.

One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is an inability to answer questions that require critical thinking.

I noticed you melted down when I tried to get some clarification on something fairly simple.

So I will ask again, because you seemed unable to provide an answer for some reason.

So if they were just nomadic tribes they deserved slaughter?

[CosmicCowboy]

Little late to re-fight the Indian wars, RG.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is an inability to answer questions that require critical thinking.

I noticed you melted down when I tried to get some clarification on something fairly simple.

So I will ask again, because you seemed unable to provide an answer for some reason.

So if they were just nomadic tribes they deserved slaughter?

Typical fucktard liberal twerp moving the goal posts. Did I say shit about slaughter, fuckwad?

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

I'm not even convinced they use it as a brush. And if they do, it's of virtual no consequence. They'll couch it some other way so that it fits into Islam, which is where they get all their propaganda from. Millions of Muslims have lived & were accepted here in the West since before 9/11, and it didn't mean a damn thing as far as that goes.

I'm for taking in refugees fwiw. But I sure as hell don't have to be an advocate of Islam or believe in a pipe dream that it not doing so would further widen the West-ME divide. Because ultimately it takes away from the greater point, which is that Islam, as it's practiced throughout the ME, Africa, and as far as the Philippines is in most cases antiquated and a cancer that breeds hate & intolerance.

As a Jew I can't believe you consider any feral Muslim immigration from that region of the world acceptable. Most of the attacks in Europe are on Jews that are minding their own business walking down the street. The primary target of the San Bernardino attack was his Jewish coworker. You’re gonna have a big target on that buzzard beak of yours

[RandomGuy]

Little late to re-fight the Indian wars, RG.

Yes it is.

Never to late to be honest about it, though. Do you agree?

[RandomGuy]

Typical fucktard liberal twerp moving the goal posts. Did I say shit about slaughter, fuckwad?

That seemed to be implied in your post, so I was asking for a clarification, just so I can understand your viewpoint.

For the record, distorting someone's views is more correctly called a strawman fallacy, not moving the goal posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

If you are going to accuse someone of being an idiot, doing so while incorrectly using terms is very ineffective.

So the question remains. I notice you still haven't been able to answer, despite its simplicity. I am merely looking for an honest answer.


So if they were just nomadic tribes they deserved slaughter?

[elbamba]

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/S/c/H/6/against-immigration-leaving.jpg

If we left, who would go to their casinos?

[mingus]

As a Jew I can't believe you consider any feral Muslim immigration from that region of the world acceptable. Most of the attacks in Europe are on Jews that are minding their own business walking down the street. The primary target of the San Bernardino attack was his Jewish coworker. You’re gonna have a big target on that buzzard beak of yours

Well, it's because I've been to that part of the world (parts of NA & India) & know from first hand experience that there are in fact good people. There are also some really bad, brainwashed people.

Like I said, the screening process & the resettlement process has to be done the right way. I'm for taking in refugees from that part of the world only if the govt. goes about it the right way. And it can be done IMO.

For starters, I think one of the things that has to be done in regards to screening is polygraph testing. It's probably the most effective way to find out what's going on inside their heads.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes it is.

Never to late to be honest about it, though. Do you agree?

Not sure how to apply 2016 modern "ethics" to 150 year old+ decisions during the westward expansion. The Indians definitely got a raw deal but that was typical worldwide of indigenous tribe abuse.

[mingus]

Little late to re-fight the Indian wars, RG.

And it's precisely why we have to be careful about who we let into this country. The NAs welcomed the "aliens" with open arms & got fucked royally for it.

What a dumb argument. This coming from a self-professed intellectual superior. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Not sure how to apply 2016 modern "ethics" to 150 year old+ decisions during the westward expansion. The Indians definitely got a raw deal but that was typical worldwide of indigenous tribe abuse.

An honest answer, thanks. I agree partly.

Where I disagree:
Actually it is very easy to apply modern ethics.

Killing = still bad
Slavery = still bad

It was sort of inevitable though and sadly to the pattern of so many human interactions.

That doesn't make what happened any less horrible.

[RandomGuy]

And it's precisely why we have to be careful about who we let into this country. The NAs welcomed the "aliens" with open arms & got fucked royally for it.

What a dumb argument. This coming from a self-professed intellectual superior. :lol

Well, let's get into it then.

You are trying to draw a parallel between two widely disparate events, and this parallel fails rather spectacularly.

The indigenous population of the US was pretty much swamped by the wave of people coming over from an industrial Europe with advanced agriculture.

Explain to me how that is analogous to a nation of 300,000,000 potentially allowing in 100,000- 500,000 refugees from a war. Even assuming we take in 1,000,000 tell me how that is similar.

Please.

[vy65]

You are trying to draw a parallel between two widely disparate events, and this parallel fails rather spectacularly.

How did you not do that with the meme you posted?

[mingus]

Well, let's get into it then.

You are trying to draw a parallel between two widely disparate events, and this parallel fails rather spectacularly.

The indigenous population of the US was pretty much swamped by the wave of people coming over from an industrial Europe with advanced agriculture.

Explain to me how that is analogous to a nation of 300,000,000 potentially allowing in 100,000- 500,000 refugees from a war. Even assuming we take in 1,000,000 tell me how that is similar.

Please.

I already stated several times in this thread that I APPROVE of letting in refugees assumming certain conditions regarding screening & resettlement are met. And as you have your conditions, I have mine--which aren't at all unreasonable BTW.

As for the parallel you've accused me of making: I did draw a parallel/analogy. Not the one you're spouting off about though. It's a really easy to see point I made. If you weren't so in love with yourself, you'd have seen it. All this other shit is mental masturbation. Which is fine I guess, but you have a horrible tendency of dropping your load all over your face.

[mingus]

How did you not do that with the meme you posted?

+1000

[RandomGuy]

How did you not do that with the meme you posted?

Some parallels work, some don't.

"keep the immigrants out" sentiment can be shown to be hypocritical, because it is not applied evenly, or rationally.
"we will be overwhelmed like the indians" doesn't work, since the demographics don't support it.

Hope that helps lay it out.

[RandomGuy]

As for the parallel you've accused me of making: I did draw a parallel/analogy. Not the one you're spouting off about though. It's a really easy to see point I made. If you weren't so in love with yourself, you'd have seen it. All this other shit is mental masturbation. Which is fine I guess, but you have a horrible tendency of dropping your load all over your face.

I guess it is easier to insult me than to flesh out your thoughts.

By all means elaborate.


The NAs welcomed the "aliens" with open arms & got fucked royally for it.

[RandomGuy]

I already stated several times in this thread that I APPROVE of letting in refugees assumming certain conditions regarding screening & resettlement are met. And as you have your conditions, I have mine--which aren't at all unreasonable BTW.


s5y70oKbAKY
JgfL8PRTLns

We have quite a bit of screening already. How much more do we need? What is reasonable? what is practical?

[mingus]

RG, I'm sorry that I insulted you. I got carried away, & I enjoy reading your posts. I get a lot out of them even when/if I disagree w/ you. You're cool. You can be a stubborn asshole sometimes, but w/e. :lol :hat

You made the initial parallel did you not?

I mean, you drew the comparison that I simply responded to. I get that they're different events, & so I fully understand that they have to be judged separately in a lot of ways given that. BUT, the idea is that in both cases--given the animosity/potential for animosity in both populations of immigrants (refugee & immigrant/alien alike)--reasonable vetting should really be a no-brainier IMO. It's just what we can take away from history. I hate the idea of doing it as much as anyone--believe it or not, I'm a compassionate & generous person--but BOTH the new environment that they're coming & the vetting have to be managed the right way. Because of it's not then coming here doesn't really help anyone. Simply being able to live in the USA--while no doubt better than living in that mess--isn't good enough for me. Can they prosper, live out their dreams? Moreover, should citizens already here feel that their freedoms-- of expression, religion, sexual orientation, etc.-- are in any way being compromised by these refugees, who come from cultures that are at odds with so many of our values? We're not helping anyone if we can't achieve both those goals. It's a two-way street for sure, & so many of the anti-refugee people need to seriously look into the mirror as well & "vet" themselves.

I'll watch the video later, pressing for time right now. Just wanted to elaborate on w/e was unclear to you.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

What should we do with the child brides found among the refugees? It's their culture just like the prophet had. We should be tolerant of child brides and sex with children right guys?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37518289

[mingus]

s5y70oKbAKY
JgfL8PRTLns

We have quite a bit of screening already. How much more do we need? What is reasonable? what is practical?

yeah I opened the video, and I just lost all interest in watching them when I saw it was coming from a partisan comedian democrat/republican. I mean, can you blame me? We have a bunch of those types already (Stewart, Colbert, I guess you can say Coulter etc.) and it's like their brains can't deal with well-founded ideological opposition. It's a disease basically. Not of the brain but of $$, most of these dudes/gals make their money pandering to ideological zealots. I do t want to be bombarded with that bullshit. It's fukin a waste of my time.

As far as how much screening needs to be done: well "how much" alone doesn't tell us much by itself. If we don't have direction or reasonable liberality. eg. being able to admit that there's widespread Islamic radicalism throughout the ME that extremists are enabling forces of terrorism and just as culpable as the terrorists themselves. Broaden & refine the scope of who makes up Islamic terrorism. It needs to be talked about. Not talking about it & avoiding the subject due to PC hurts both parties. Because by further refining what it means to be a terrorist, a mask that can/has been worn by many but in this particular case Muslim extremists, it lets people know that it only applies to a category of Muslims, & that many aw in fact wonderful people. The way we've defined it now, it actually fuels Islamaphobia, as people don't know how to discern the difference between moderates & fundamentalists. It's precisely why there's so much Islamophobia! And that's important because bringing these refugees into an environment that lacks that understanding will pretty much alienate them the fuck back to their shithole mess, or radicalize them. There's enough examples of that happening on a global scale to tell me we got a lot of work to put in as far as changing/evolving our countries views on Muslims. I wish that D.C. would set a target date for taking on refugee re-settlement in the States (but we can set up temporary refugee camps in that region & from them pick from who we want to let in) instead of basically just throwing them into the so-called "fire". Not doing this leads to stuff like that "Muslim clock kid" happening. It's unfair & negligent. But both parties have their respective bases to pander to and the discussion won't ever take place.

So yeah, that's just one gripe I have with the whole process, but it's a huge gripe & I think we've got to solve that as a condition for letting in refugees. If we can't do that, then it's really a shame. But there's no good in following that up with blind stupidity. Continue to try to articulate the message to the public.

[RandomGuy]

We have quite a bit of screening already. How much more do we need? What is reasonable? what is practical?


yeah I opened the video, and I just lost all interest in watching them when I saw it was coming from a partisan comedian democrat/republican. I mean, can you blame me? We have a bunch of those types already (Stewart, Colbert, I guess you can say Coulter etc.) and it's like their brains can't deal with well-founded ideological opposition. It's a disease basically. Not of the brain but of $$, most of these dudes/gals make their money pandering to ideological zealots. I do t want to be bombarded with that bullshit. It's fukin a waste of my time.

As far as how much screening needs to be done: well "how much" alone doesn't tell us much by itself. If we don't have direction or reasonable liberality. eg. being able to admit that there's widespread Islamic radicalism throughout the ME that extremists are enabling forces of terrorism and just as culpable as the terrorists themselves. Broaden & refine the scope of who makes up Islamic terrorism. It needs to be talked about. Not talking about it & avoiding the subject due to PC hurts both parties. Because by further refining what it means to be a terrorist, a mask that can/has been worn by many but in this particular case Muslim extremists, it lets people know that it only applies to a category of Muslims, & that many aw in fact wonderful people. The way we've defined it now, it actually fuels Islamaphobia, as people don't know how to discern the difference between moderates & fundamentalists. It's precisely why there's so much Islamophobia! And that's important because bringing these refugees into an environment that lacks that understanding will pretty much alienate them the fuck back to their shithole mess, or radicalize them. There's enough examples of that happening on a global scale to tell me we got a lot of work to put in as far as changing/evolving our countries views on Muslims. I wish that D.C. would set a target date for taking on refugee re-settlement in the States (but we can set up temporary refugee camps in that region & from them pick from who we want to let in) instead of basically just throwing them into the so-called "fire". Not doing this leads to stuff like that "Muslim clock kid" happening. It's unfair & negligent. But both parties have their respective bases to pander to and the discussion won't ever take place.

So yeah, that's just one gripe I have with the whole process, but it's a huge gripe & I think we've got to solve that as a condition for letting in refugees. If we can't do that, then it's really a shame. But there's no good in following that up with blind stupidity. Continue to try to articulate the message to the public.

So, instead of addressing what she noted about the screening process, you just dismissed it out of hand?

Was she wrong about the screening process because she is partisan?

You also completely failed to meaningfully answer the questions posed.

We have quite a bit of screening already. How much more do we need? What is reasonable? what is practical?

[RandomGuy]

What should we do with the child brides found among the refugees? It's their culture just like the prophet had. We should be tolerant of child brides and sex with children right guys?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37518289

Not really.

How many of them are there in the applicants?

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Jordan's Chief Islamic Justice Department was recently quoted as saying child marriages represented about 35% of all marriages of Syrian refugees in 2015.

[rmt]

Jordan's Chief Islamic Justice Department was recently quoted as saying child marriages represented about 35% of all marriages of Syrian refugees in 2015.

Some here just don't want to face up to some of the practices that these people espouse.

[boutons_deux]

Some here just don't want to face up to some of the practices that these people espouse.

The Jewess "Virgin" Mary, when she was Immaculately Conceived, was 10 to 14 years old.

Law enforcement stings, arrests 100s, 1000s?, of USA pedophiles every year, but y'all selectively blame only Muslims for pedophilia marriages.

And then there's all the raping of women and children by US soldiers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you want to bias out pedophiles I see no issue with that. Saying they all do it and categorically should be banned is stupid.

[mingus]

So, instead of addressing what she noted about the screening process, you just dismissed it out of hand?

Was she wrong about the screening process because she is partisan?

You also completely failed to meaningfully answer the questions posed.

We have quite a bit of screening already. How much more do we need? What is reasonable? what is practical?

Yeah man, I'm more interested in hearing poster takes than a link to a YouTube video where there's a partisan that supplants facts w/ either liberal/conservative opinion & commentary. Not interested in that. I'm not merely dismissing IT, I dismiss ALL such types of videos--it's nothing personal. Because, well, time is a valuable thing to me. Don't like that? Sorry. Oh well.

I answered your question, generally speaking. I stated the conditions that I feel have to be met in order to take in refugees from this particular part of the world. Are there polygraph tests? Do they want to adapt to our common, democratic way of life or not? Are they being resettled in communities that value/respect them (or fear/hate) them, so that they can live happy childhoods/lives & prosper?

If I can get assurance that those are being accomplished, then I'm fine with accepting refugees from there. If not, then (:depressedis this the part where I'm supposed to get all teary-eyed, because I can't allow myself to submit to blind compassion?:depressed) I'll happily approve of refugee camps in that part of the world until they can.

[SnakeBoy]

Our country is so huge that assimilation is pretty much inevitable, unless you completely cloister yourself like the Amish.


Or you're black

[RandomGuy]

Yeah man, I'm more interested in hearing poster takes than a link to a YouTube video where there's a partisan that supplants facts w/ either liberal/conservative opinion & commentary. Not interested in that. I'm not merely dismissing IT, I dismiss ALL such types of videos--it's nothing personal. Because, well, time is a valuable thing to me. Don't like that? Sorry. Oh well.

I answered your question, generally speaking. I stated the conditions that I feel have to be met in order to take in refugees from this particular part of the world. Are there polygraph tests? Do they want to adapt to our common, democratic way of life or not? Are they being resettled in communities that value/respect them (or fear/hate) them, so that they can live happy childhoods/lives & prosper?

If I can get assurance that those are being accomplished, then I'm fine with accepting refugees from there. If not, then (:depressedis this the part where I'm supposed to get all teary-eyed, because I can't allow myself to submit to blind compassion?:depressed) I'll happily approve of refugee camps in that part of the world until they can.

I don't see any comment about what the screening process actually entails, nor any concrete proposals for getting to your comfort level.

Do you know what the screening process entails for Syrian refugees?

[Spurminator]

Or you're black

What does the assimilation of a black person entail?

[mingus]

I don't see any comment about what the screening process actually entails, nor any concrete proposals for getting to your comfort level.

Do you know what the screening process entails for Syrian refugees?

I've read about most of what it entails & I remember liking all/most of what I read. But I don't remember reading that polygraph tests are being administered. Maybe I missed it. It's really a linchpin for me.

[SnakeBoy]

What does the assimilation of a black person entail?

Economic assimilation first and foremost. It's the most important part.

[RandomGuy]

I've read about most of what it entails & I remember liking all/most of what I read. But I don't remember reading that polygraph tests are being administered. Maybe I missed it. It's really a linchpin for me.

Polygraphs seem useless to me.

There are five levels of reviews.

Do you think that is necessary for a widow with 2-5 kids?



Or can we just take a pass on administering polygraphs to 5 year olds?

Not all the refugees fall into this category, but it would be easily possible to get 100,000+ that fall into just that category.

Get in a family man with everything to lose, i.e. wife and children, should he get the same treatment?

Lastly, we lose 35,000 people each year to car crashes.

If the level of additional risk to any given person in the US is less than that of, say, choking to death on food, how do you justify NOT allowing people who might be tortured/killed into the country?

[Spurminator]

Economic assimilation first and foremost. It's the most important part.

So maybe you meant "poor" instead of "black."

[RandomGuy]

4,864 people ... died from choking in 2013

http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/safety-at-home-choking.aspx

Terrorists kill fewer than ham sandwiches.

That is the level of risk we are talking about.

[RandomGuy]

Immigrants today are integrating into U.S. society as fast or faster than those of previous generations, according to a study released Monday, with male immigrants holding down jobs at higher rates and committing fewer crimes than native-born Americans.

The study, by an expert committee led by Harvard sociologist Mary Waters for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, provides a counterpoint to some claims in the national debate on immigration. It illuminates how immigrants fare after arriving in the United States, which is important, Waters said, given that one in four Americans today is either an immigrant or a child of one.

In light of the country’s policy debate on immigrants, “whether or not they’re succeeding … is an important question for the future of our society,” said Waters, the M.E. Zukerman Professor of Sociology.

The two-year analysis by a committee of sociologists, economists, political scientists, geographers, and other experts reviewed existing studies on life for immigrants in the United States. In some areas of focus, Waters said, studies were scarce, so committee members turned to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and other sources.

The report looked at a number of different measures — including education, occupation, residential segregation, language acquisition, poverty, health, crime rates, family type, intermarriage, and naturalization — to determine whether today’s immigrants are as successful at integrating as prior waves. The answer is yes, Waters said, though she added that assimilation takes time.

“Integration is a multigenerational process.”

Among its recommendations, the report suggested further study of America’s naturalization process. Only half of eligible immigrants become naturalized Americans, a far lower rate than in certain other nations, such as Canada and Australia.

The study looked at immigrants and native-born Americans of similar backgrounds. For example, it compared immigrants with high educational attainment to native-born of high educational attainment, and native-born from poor backgrounds to immigrants from poor backgrounds.

Overall, immigrants are more likely to be poor, 18.4 percent compared with 13.8 percent for native-born Americans. This is the case even though a greater proportion of immigrants work. The poverty rate declines over time, approximating that of the native-born in the second generation, and then falling to 11.5 percent in the third generation.

Young immigrant men with low levels of education commit fewer crimes than their native-born counterparts, the report said, and foreign-born men ages 18 to 39 are jailed at one-fourth the rate of native-born men. The impact of this is felt in cities where concentrations of new immigrants align with lower crime rates, Waters said.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/09/measuring-assimilation/


What we understand about assimilation into the US:

It is automatic.
It takes about 20-40 years.

3rd generation rarely speaks their native language.

This is the way populations get assimilated.

This is the same for all sorts of groups with various ethnicities and religions.

[SnakeBoy]

So maybe you meant "poor" instead of "black."

No I meant black.

Economically Asians surpass whites in this country, 2nd generation+ hispanics do just as well as whites, but blacks are stuck at the back of the pack. Do you find it racist to say they haven't been fully assimilated?

[RandomGuy]

How big is the problem?
From 2005-2014, there were an average of 3,536 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=drowning%20deaths%20in%20the%20us%202015

Ten per day is vastly more than terrorists.

Should we be more concerned about terrorism or drowning on this basis?

[RandomGuy]

No I meant black.

Economically Asians surpass whites in this country, 2nd generation+ hispanics do just as well as whites, but blacks are stuck at the back of the pack. Do you find it racist to say they haven't been fully assimilated?

Depends.

I tend to think of 1965 as about the "landing time".

Three generations is about now to be assimilated.

It isn't racist to say blacks in the US have not caught up. That is merely fact.

The causes for that... is topic for a whole other thread. :)

[boutons_deux]

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=drowning%20deaths%20in%20the%20us%202015

Ten per day is vastly more than terrorists.

Should we be more concerned about terrorism or drowning on this basis?

The current, increasing opioid crisis is even bigger.

BigPharma lobbied successfully to stop any state from restricting opioid prescribing. Dead Americans for profit.

[Spurminator]

No I meant black.

Economically Asians surpass whites in this country, 2nd generation+ hispanics do just as well as whites, but blacks are stuck at the back of the pack. Do you find it racist to say they haven't been fully assimilated?

You're comparing black assimilation to Amish assimilation and the concern of a hypothetical Muslim refugee colony lead by Muslim principles that contradict secular principles of American assimilation. 100% of Muslims are Muslim. 100% of Amish are Amish. 27% of blacks are poor.

So it may not be racist but it's a stupid comparison.

[SnakeBoy]

100% of Muslims are Muslim. 100% of Amish are Amish. 27% of blacks are poor.


http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100131203001/muppet/images/6/67/1Of_These_Things.jpg

[DarrinS]

http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/safety-at-home-choking.aspx

Terrorists kill fewer than ham sandwiches.

That is the level of risk we are talking about.


Samsung Galaxy Note 7 explosions are statistically rare, but Samsung recalled them and took a major hit to their brand (and stock). The FAA won't let you turn on or charge a Galaxy Note 7 while flying. :lol

[Spurminator]

Samsung Galaxy Note 7 explosions are statistically rare, but Samsung recalled them and took a major hit to their brand (and stock). The FAA won't let you turn on or charge a Galaxy Note 7 while flying. :lol

Samsung Galaxy Note 7's don't have human rights.

[SnakeBoy]

If the level of additional risk to any given person in the US is less than that of, say, choking to death on food, how do you justify NOT allowing people who might be tortured/killed into the country?

Why do you give Syrians such a priority to become Americans? I mean if it is just about compassion then why aren't you making the same argument to bring over a billion+ people from around the world because they are suffering?

[Splits]

Samsung Galaxy Note 7's don't have human rights.

but but but... :cry corporations are people :cry

[boutons_deux]

Why do you give Syrians such a priority to become Americans?

Because it was USA (Repugs) who destabilized the M/E for BigOil, leading directly the current shitstorm.

USA's empire of greed caused the Syrians suffering, USA should be more open to accepting ITS Syrian and other refugees.

[RandomGuy]

Samsung Galaxy Note 7 explosions are statistically rare, but Samsung recalled them and took a major hit to their brand (and stock). The FAA won't let you turn on or charge a Galaxy Note 7 while flying. :lol

I'm confused here again. What is your point?

Are you trying to equate human beings to defective smart phones?

[RandomGuy]

Why do you give Syrians such a priority to become Americans? I mean if it is just about compassion then why aren't you making the same argument to bring over a billion+ people from around the world because they are suffering?

Be happy to answer your question, if you would do me the respect of answering mine first. I didn't think it was that hard, and feel it is important.

If the level of additional risk to any given person in the US is less than that of, say, choking to death on food, how do you justify NOT allowing people who might be tortured/killed into the country?


[edit]
You have asked a very good and important question, imo. It should be answered by anyone taking my position, but you first.

[mingus]

Polygraphs seem useless to me.

There are five levels of reviews.

Do you think that is necessary for a widow with 2-5 kids?



Or can we just take a pass on administering polygraphs to 5 year olds?

Not all the refugees fall into this category, but it would be easily possible to get 100,000+ that fall into just that category.

Get in a family man with everything to lose, i.e. wife and children, should he get the same treatment?

Lastly, we lose 35,000 people each year to car crashes.

If the level of additional risk to any given person in the US is less than that of, say, choking to death on food, how do you justify NOT allowing people who might be tortured/killed into the country?

Um, yeah it's important that the mother get polygraphed. Not the young kids of course, but adolescents definitely need to be. That's not to say that those slightly-to-mildly-to-very brainwashed adolescents are immediately dangerous (although some can definitely be), but that they're potentially headed there. Kids younger than that are still really impressionable & changeable in their thoughts & behaviors. I worry less about them. But, yes, women (oh! poor, innocent, harmless women--GMAFB. Women have played both active & passive roles in the spread of extremism & terrorism) & adolescents should be polygraphed.

And the polygraph need not only be used as a weeding out tool. It can allow insight into the kind & extent of the counseling they might need to better adapt based on how they score.

As you rightly pointed out, the vast vast majority of refugees being let in are not terrorists. I'm not worried about most refugees. I'm only worried about a potential small minority. But it only takes a dozen nutjobs to distort the perception Americans (& the rest of the world) have of Muslims by killing a thousand people, or even a dozen people, or by brainwashing/recruiting more people, who repeat the cycle. Additionally, it also ramps up the stress of living in the U.S. for Muslims already living here, as they then get even more alienated from the rest of society. It's more than death statistics. Your sandwich-to-Muslim comparison is a twisted, gross dehumanization.

We have to get into the minds of these refugees the best we can, & I don't see how employing the polygraph shouldn't/wouldn't play a big role in that regard.

[spurraider21]

Polygraphs seem useless to me.

There are five levels of reviews.

Do you think that is necessary for a widow with 2-5 kids?



Or can we just take a pass on administering polygraphs to 5 year olds?

Not all the refugees fall into this category, but it would be easily possible to get 100,000+ that fall into just that category.

Get in a family man with everything to lose, i.e. wife and children, should he get the same treatment?

Lastly, we lose 35,000 people each year to car crashes.

If the level of additional risk to any given person in the US is less than that of, say, choking to death on food, how do you justify NOT allowing people who might be tortured/killed into the country?
lol but what about black on black crime

[SnakeBoy]

Be happy to answer your question, if you would do me the respect of answering mine first. I didn't think it was that hard, and feel it is important.

If the level of additional risk to any given person in the US is less than that of, say, choking to death on food, how do you justify NOT allowing people who might be tortured/killed into the country?


[edit]
You have asked a very good and important question, imo. It should be answered by anyone taking my position, but you first.


Hmmm... I don't think I've ever said we shouldn't take in any refugees or even commented seriously on the topic. I don't have strong views on the subject. I'm not a progressive so I don't feel we have some moral obligation to save everyone on the planet or solve everyone's problems. We let millions of desperate people die every year that we could save if we wanted to. It never bothered your side of the fence before (or my side).

To stick with the Skittles=Islamic Refugees analogy...

I'm not scared of a poison skittle but I'll admit that overall I think skittles are a fairly shitty choice of candy. I mean I'll eat them if that's the only bite size candy available but you put them next to a bowl of M&M's and I'll pick the M&M's every time. I don't think I have a moral obligation to eat all the skittles while the M&M's melt away in my hand.

I think you'll agree that none of us are capable of eating all the bite size candies on the planet. I do feel that because we are Americans we are obligated to eat a reasonable amount of bite size candy but why does it have to be Skittles?

[boutons_deux]

"solve everyone's problems"

when USA CAUSES other peoples' problems, USA has the obligation to help them. And the Repugs' fuckup in Afghanistan and the Middle East is USA's responsibility.

[SnakeBoy]

Turns out they aren't skittles, they're gumballs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

[boutons_deux]

...

[SnakeBoy]

Don't have the house to be able to take in an entire family.

If I can find someone within a reasonable distance, to be able to do something meaningful, I will. Mentoring, advice, and whatever social network I can provide, with financial assistance if needed. An investment.

Haven't really looked into it yet. Sorry if whatever plans I have are not to your timeline.

So what have you done to help RG?

[RandomGuy]

So what have you done to help RG?

Given some very modest amounts of money.

What have you done?

[SnakeBoy]

Given some very modest amounts of money.

What have you done?

Nothing but I wasn't the one proclaiming that I'd risk my life to save the skittles. It's nice that you ended up putting in a minimal amount of effort saving the Syrian skittles. I'm sure they are grateful.

[RandomGuy]

Nothing but I wasn't the one proclaiming that I'd risk my life to save the skittles. It's nice that you ended up putting in a minimal amount of effort saving the Syrian skittles. I'm sure they are grateful.

We all have to make moral decisions.



Me: "Look that person is drowning, we should save him"
You: "I don't give a shit about them. Let them die, why aren't you jumping in to save them?"
Me: "I can't swim."
You: "Well, you must not care, and since you aren't saving them they deserve to drown anyway".

Is that what you are going for? That is your morally superior "argument"?

Conservative moral and intellectual bankruptcy to a "T".

No solutions. No human empathy.

[RandomGuy]

Nothing but I wasn't the one proclaiming that I'd risk my life to save the skittles. It's nice that you ended up putting in a minimal amount of effort saving the Syrian skittles. I'm sure they are grateful.

Intellectual bankruptcy:


Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)
argumentum ad hominem tu quoque
(also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)
Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

This argument is so bad, it has a name.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/11/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque

Conservatives use it all the time here.

I'm sure you think you were making a big point here. You did, but not the one you wanted.

[SnakeBoy]

We all have to make moral decisions.




Me: "Look that person is drowning, we should save him"
You: "I don't give a shit about them. Let them die, why aren't you jumping in to save them?"
Me: "I can't swim."
You: "Well, you must not care, and since you aren't saving them they deserve to drown anyway".

Is that what you are going for? That is your morally superior "argument"?

Conservative moral and intellectual bankruptcy to a "T".

No solutions. No human empathy.

lol okay I promise if I see a drowning person I'll follow your lead and scream "I'll save you!" then I'll run to the waters edge and throw some quarters at the person.

[RandomGuy]

Nothing but I wasn't the one proclaiming that I'd risk my life to save the skittles. It's nice that you ended up putting in a minimal amount of effort saving the Syrian skittles. I'm sure they are grateful.

Moral bankruptcy:

"I won't risk my life at all to help anyone."


selfish
[sel-fish]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2.
characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself:

[RandomGuy]

lol okay I promise if I see a drowning person I'll follow your lead and scream "I'll save you!" then I'll run to the waters edge and throw some quarters at the person.

Intellectual bankruptcy:


Strawman Fallacy
Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

This argument is so bad, it has a name.

Conservatives use it all the time here.

I'm sure you think you were making a big point here. You did, but not the one you wanted.

[SnakeBoy]

Moral bankruptcy:

"I won't risk my life at all to help anyone."

You didn't

[RandomGuy]

The whole point of this thread was to point out the moral failings of conservatism.

Pointing out the intellectual failings too, is just a plus, IMO.

By all means Snakeboy, please keep making my points for me.

Don't take a serious subject seriously, or think though the moral implications of a human tragedy with all the misery in a thoughtful, insightful, or respectful way.

[SnakeBoy]

Before placing yourself on a morality pedestal I think you should learn how to swim RG

[RandomGuy]

You didn't

I am willing to accept risk to myself, and my family, from letting in refugees.

You aren't.

The risk is vanishingly small. The benefits to those we can help, immense.

The only reason not to accept the risk, is to weigh human beings who are suffering as worthless.

[SnakeBoy]

I am willing to accept risk to myself, and my family, from letting in refugees.

You aren't.

The risk is vanishingly small. The benefits to those we can help, immense.

The only reason not to accept the risk, is to weigh human beings who are suffering as worthless.

So you accepted risk when there was no risk?

[RandomGuy]

Before placing yourself on a morality pedestal I think you should learn how to swim RG

Seriously though, you are either trying to troll me, or just too upset to have a productive conversation.

Either way, I have other things to do. You seem smart enough to have a decent conversation with. That you don't, says more about you than anything you can about me here, becuase your choice is played out with each post.

[SnakeBoy]

Seriously though, you are either trying to troll me, or just too upset to have a productive conversation.

Either way, I have other things to do. You seem smart enough to have a decent conversation with. That you don't, says more about you than anything you can about me here, becuase your choice is played out with each post.

No I just wanted to know what you actually did after all your moral grandstanding. I figured the answer would be "not much" and it was.

[SnakeBoy]

Either way, I have other things to do. You seem smart enough to have a decent conversation with. That you don't, says more about you than anything you can about me here, becuase your choice is played out with each post.

You stopped having decent conversations a long time ago RG. You're almost at boutons level at this point.

[RandomGuy]

more trolling

Another choice. Another failure.

(shrugs)

I guess, if that is what you think is important. Peace.

[SnakeBoy]

Another choice. Another failure.

(shrugs)

I guess, if that is what you think is important. Peace.

Got any more naked Melania pics?

[Thread]

You stopped having decent conversations a long time ago RG. You're almost at boutons level at this point.

He's right, RG.

[SnakeBoy]

They're important.

[RandomGuy]

The whole point of this thread was to point out the moral failings of conservatism.

Pointing out the intellectual failings too, is just a plus, IMO.

By all means Snakeboy, please keep making my points for me.

Don't take a serious subject seriously, or think though the moral implications of a human tragedy with all the misery in a thoughtful, insightful, or respectful way.


Got any more naked Melania pics?

:rolleyes

Another choice, another failure.

[RandomGuy]

So you accepted risk when there was no risk?

???

Your question here is too short to make out.

[RandomGuy]

No I just wanted to know what you actually did after all your moral grandstanding. I figured the answer would be "not much" and it was.

Financial quiz time:

If I reduce my debt by cutting back on optional spending in order to allocate as much money as possible in the short term to debt retirement and take on no new debt, does that increase my free cash flow in the longer term?

[SnakeBoy]

???

Your question here is too short to make out.

Read what you wrote...


I am willing to accept risk to myself, and my family, from letting in refugees.

You aren't.

The risk is vanishingly small. The benefits to those we can help, immense.

The only reason not to accept the risk, is to weigh human beings who are suffering as worthless.

You credit yourself for accepting the risk (:cry so noble) and then explain (correctly) that there really was no risk. You did nothing RandomGuy.

[RandomGuy]

Read what you wrote...



You credit yourself for accepting the risk (:cry so noble) and then explain (correctly) that there really was no risk. You did nothing RandomGuy.

Man, do your posts reek of desperation. You are trying harder to discredit me personally than you are trying to justify your position.

First, lets deal with basic math.

"no risk".

Math quiz:
Is a small positive number greater, smaller, or equal to zero?

But that is a quibble.

The other half of what you are going for here is so poorly reasoned, it is hard to know where to start.

The whole point of accepting refugees is that the risk is small individually, which you seemed to accept. That is my entire point, and completely destroys your entire "don't help" position.

So which is it?

No/little risk?

or

Too much risk?


Pick one or the other. If you want to keep saying I do nothing you prove the OP's "coward" point. If you want to say the risk is too big, you have to justify that measurement, which you can't, and you know it.

Or continue to choose to do what I asked you to do, which is lame trolling. I need as many examples of conservative failures as I can get to prove my other theme of conservative intellectual/moral bankruptcy. The other option is man up, and admit that, shockingly, a liberal might have made a good point.

Your choice. Bravery or ...?

[RandomGuy]

Why do you give Syrians such a priority to become Americans? I mean if it is just about compassion then why aren't you making the same argument to bring over a billion+ people from around the world because they are suffering?

Be happy to answer your question, if you would do me the respect of answering mine first. I didn't think it was that hard, and feel it is important.

If the level of additional risk to any given person in the US is less than that of, say, choking to death on food, how do you justify NOT allowing people who might be tortured/killed into the country?


[edit]
You have asked a very good and important question, imo. It should be answered by anyone taking my position, but you first.

Alternately, we could go back to the point where there was a decent discussion. Shocking, I know.

[SnakeBoy]

Be happy to answer your question, if you would do me the respect of answering mine first. I didn't think it was that hard, and feel it is important.

If the level of additional risk to any given person in the US is less than that of, say, choking to death on food, how do you justify NOT allowing people who might be tortured/killed into the country?


[edit]
You have asked a very good and important question, imo. It should be answered by anyone taking my position, but you first.

Alternately, we could go back to the point where there was a decent discussion. Shocking, I know.

You mean the point where I asked you a simple question and you refused to answer until I defended a position that I hadn't taken?


Financial quiz time:

If I reduce my debt by cutting back on optional spending in order to allocate as much money as possible in the short term to debt retirement and take on no new debt, does that increase my free cash flow in the longer term?

lol Ima risk my life saving these refugees just as soon as I get these bills paid off.

[TeyshaBlue]

The whole point of this thread was to point out the moral failings of conservatism.

Pointing out the intellectual failings too, is just a plus, IMO.

By all means Snakeboy, please keep making my points for me.

Don't take a serious subject seriously, or think though the moral implications of a human tragedy with all the misery in a thoughtful, insightful, or respectful way.
Pointing out the moral failings of conservatism as determined by you.... The Arbiter of Conservatism.

[RandomGuy]

You mean the point where I asked you a simple question and you refused to answer until I defended a position that I hadn't taken?

lol Ima risk my life saving these refugees just as soon as I get these bills paid off.

I guess, if you want to keep repeating this because you think it shows something or upsets me, that is your choice. I have pointed out it is flawed, as well as unfair. I have also deliberately left out a few things for the sake of brevity, because they are less relevant to the conversation.

You are defined by your choices. What does that choice say about you?

I asked you a question that I wanted answered, you ignored it, and asked something else.

Should the conversation just be one way? Do you think that will be productive?

I didn't ask you to defend something you didn't believe. I merely asked a question. Feel free to outline what you think we should do at any time.

[RandomGuy]

Pointing out the moral failings of conservatism as determined by you.... The Arbiter of Conservatism.

Quite frankly, I doubt anyone even can define the term. I use it loosely.

[boutons_deux]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

... but since US conservatism nearly always votes for the oligarchy's whores in the Repug party, I'd say practical, not academic, conservatives share responsibility for the Repug assholes and all their immoral, unethical shit, Repugs valuing the oligarchy's donations way above the welfare, well being of America and non-oligarchy Americans.

[SnakeBoy]

I guess, if you want to keep repeating this because you think it shows something or upsets me, that is your choice. I have pointed out it is flawed, as well as unfair. I have also deliberately left out a few things for the sake of brevity, because they are less relevant to the conversation.

You are defined by your choices. What does that choice say about you?

I asked you a question that I wanted answered, you ignored it, and asked something else.

Should the conversation just be one way? Do you think that will be productive?

I didn't ask you to defend something you didn't believe. I merely asked a question. Feel free to outline what you think we should do at any time.

Be happy to answer your question, if you would do me the respect of answering mine first. I didn't think it was that hard, and feel it is important.

Why do you give Syrians such a priority to become Americans? I mean if it is just about compassion then why aren't you making the same argument to bring over a billion+ people from around the world because they are suffering?


[edit]
You have asked a very good and important question, imo. It should be answered by anyone taking my position, but you first.

[RandomGuy]

Here's a question: why these specific refugees? And not the thousands, or millions, of refugees all over the world that in many cases are probably worse off than these Syrian ones?


Why do you give Syrians such a priority to become Americans? I mean if it is just about compassion then why aren't you making the same argument to bring over a billion+ people from around the world because they are suffering?

We should allow more of all of them in. A yearly quota with a fairly high limit, in the hundreds of thousands range. Allocate whatever resources that takes.

Most of the people in the cue now from Syria are:

Children (no parents)
Women with (children)

Neither demographic is predisposed to either crime, or extremist behavior likely to kill people.

Your question is now answered, Snakeboy.

Now you have another choice to make.

I am going ask you what we *should* do about refugees. A solid policy proposal, with whatever moral or logical reasoning you think underpins that.

The excuse that I am somehow misrepresenting your position can be removed merely by acceding to my request that you clarify it, and I have also removed the excuse you have given that I have somehow not answered your question. Take some personal responsibility, and stop making excuses.

Are you going to choose to do the ethical thing, and answer honestly, or ... ?

[RandomGuy]

Still waiting SnakeBoy

Your actual position? What do we do?

[SnakeBoy]

Still waiting SnakeBoy

Your actual position? What do we do?

lol

It took 9 months for you to give this dodge of an answer to my question


We should allow more of all of them in.

but now your impatient for an answer?

I'll accept it as an answer even though it really isn't but you'll just have to wait until I feel like typing an answer to your question.

[RandomGuy]

lol

It took 9 months for you to give this dodge of an answer to my question



but now your impatient for an answer?

I'll accept it as an answer even though it really isn't but you'll just have to wait until I feel like typing an answer to your question.

FWIW:

10-12-2016
RG asks SB a question. Post 102
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263493&page=4&p=8748127&viewfull=1#post8748127

10-12-2016
SB ignores question by asking a question. Post 114

10-12-2016 Post 118
I state that I would be happy to answer your question, if you answer mine, and further stated that your question was a good one.

10-13-2016
You posted something about skittles and M & Ms that I didn't quite follow. Post #121

[SnakeBoy]

I asked you a question first.

You failed to answer, and dodged by asking a question, ignoring it.

I waited for a while, and decided that even if you wanted to argue unfairly, I would take the high road and answer.

Are you delusional or just lying deliberately?

I asked you a question in post #114. If you had a question for me before that point it out.

I've been saying you've reached bouton's level but the funny thing is it only took bouton's a couple of minutes to give an honest answer as to why he thought Syrians should receive special preference. You still haven't answer that question. Maybe you've become more Chumpdumper than bouton's.

[RandomGuy]

Are you delusional or just lying deliberately?

I asked you a question in post #114. If you had a question for me before that point it out.

I've been saying you've reached bouton's level but the funny thing is it only took bouton's a couple of minutes to give an honest answer as to why he thought Syrians should receive special preference.

See above. Sorry for the confusion.

Like most things, it looks like two people talking past each other somewhat.

[SnakeBoy]

See above. Sorry for the confusion.

Like most things, it looks like two people talking past each other somewhat.

lol two people

I was never talking past you. Let's summarize...

I asked you a question, you refused to answer until I defended a position I hadn't taken
I gave my general position on the topic (I'm guessing you didn't understand the bite size candy analogy)
You continued to ask me to defend a position I hadn't taken while proclaiming you were going to do everything possible to personally help Syrian refugees
9 months later I asked you what you actually did to help and you basically said not much but once your done paying off bills you'll do more.
Then you went back to asking me to defend a position that I hadn't taken cuz Repugs! (I'm guessing)

[SnakeBoy]

10-12-2016
RG asks SB a question. Post 102
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263493&page=4&p=8748127&viewfull=1#post8748127


Uhh...that's you asking mingus a question.

[RandomGuy]

lol two people

I was never talking past you. Let's summarize...

I asked you a question, you refused to answer until I defended a position I hadn't taken
I gave my general position on the topic (I'm guessing you didn't understand the bite size candy analogy)
You continued to ask me to defend a position I hadn't taken while proclaiming you were going to do everything possible to personally help Syrian refugees
9 months later I asked you what you actually did to help and you basically said not much but once your done paying off bills you'll do more.
Then you went back to asking me to defend a position that I hadn't taken cuz Repugs! (I'm guessing)

You typed something about M & Ms and skittles. If you think your point was well made, or clear, it wasn't, at least not to me. I think I have deciphered it, but would prefer a more direct statement, because I vastly prefer clarity.

I am not now asking you to defend any position, merely clarify your own position.

Can you do that?

[RandomGuy]

Um, yeah it's important that the mother get polygraphed. Not the young kids of course, but adolescents definitely need to be. That's not to say that those slightly-to-mildly-to-very brainwashed adolescents are immediately dangerous (although some can definitely be), but that they're potentially headed there. Kids younger than that are still really impressionable & changeable in their thoughts & behaviors. I worry less about them. But, yes, women (oh! poor, innocent, harmless women--GMAFB. Women have played both active & passive roles in the spread of extremism & terrorism) & adolescents should be polygraphed.

And the polygraph need not only be used as a weeding out tool. It can allow insight into the kind & extent of the counseling they might need to better adapt based on how they score.

As you rightly pointed out, the vast vast majority of refugees being let in are not terrorists. I'm not worried about most refugees. I'm only worried about a potential small minority. But it only takes a dozen nutjobs to distort the perception Americans (& the rest of the world) have of Muslims by killing a thousand people, or even a dozen people, or by brainwashing/recruiting more people, who repeat the cycle. Additionally, it also ramps up the stress of living in the U.S. for Muslims already living here, as they then get even more alienated from the rest of society. It's more than death statistics. Your sandwich-to-Muslim comparison is a twisted, gross dehumanization.

We have to get into the minds of these refugees the best we can, & I don't see how employing the polygraph shouldn't/wouldn't play a big role in that regard.

Polygraphs don't work. IF you want effective screening, you would not include them.

[RandomGuy]

Hmmm... I don't think I've ever said we shouldn't take in any refugees or even commented seriously on the topic. I don't have strong views on the subject. I'm not a progressive so I don't feel we have some moral obligation to save everyone on the planet or solve everyone's problems. We let millions of desperate people die every year that we could save if we wanted to. It never bothered your side of the fence before (or my side).

To stick with the Skittles=Islamic Refugees analogy...

I'm not scared of a poison skittle but I'll admit that overall I think skittles are a fairly shitty choice of candy. I mean I'll eat them if that's the only bite size candy available but you put them next to a bowl of M&M's and I'll pick the M&M's every time. I don't think I have a moral obligation to eat all the skittles while the M&M's melt away in my hand.

I think you'll agree that none of us are capable of eating all the bite size candies on the planet. I do feel that because we are Americans we are obligated to eat a reasonable amount of bite size candy but why does it have to be Skittles?

"we can't save everybody, so we shouldn't save anybody"

You seem to take great effort to criticize and ridicule me for not doing more, as far as you are aware.

Not wanting to do anything, seems pretty ... hollow.

Did I get it right? If not, please expand on your actual position.

[DMC]

lol two people

I was never talking past you. Let's summarize...

I asked you a question, you refused to answer until I defended a position I hadn't taken
I gave my general position on the topic (I'm guessing you didn't understand the bite size candy analogy)
You continued to ask me to defend a position I hadn't taken while proclaiming you were going to do everything possible to personally help Syrian refugees
9 months later I asked you what you actually did to help and you basically said not much but once your done paying off bills you'll do more.
Then you went back to asking me to defend a position that I hadn't taken cuz Repugs! (I'm guessing)

This is common. The SJW types have a goal of feeling better about themselves, which means they have to feel they are better than you. They don't actually want to do anything about situations, just talk about it, blog, comment over coffee in a protected environment. Then they'll recharge their "I'm an activist, I matter" battery and be good for another few weeks until another topic emerges, then it's back to the keyboard or coffee shop for more activism.

[RandomGuy]

This is common. The SJW types have a goal of feeling better about themselves, which means they have to feel they are better than you. They don't actually want to do anything about situations, just talk about it, blog, comment over coffee in a protected environment. Then they'll recharge their "I'm an activist, I matter" battery and be good for another few weeks until another topic emerges, then it's back to the keyboard or coffee shop for more activism.


This is common. People like youself have a goal of feeling better about themselves, which means they have to feel they are better than others. I would guess you do even less than I do. You don't actually do anything about any situation, because you are selfish, and well, stupid. It doesn't occur to you that other people might actually genuinely care, because empathy is something that eludes you, in your rush to feel superior, however flimsy the reason.

You see a tiny bit of information, think you know enough to determine reality, then build up some imaginary person out of ignorance, spite, and selfishness. This imaginary person allows you to feel superior, so you can toss out cute acronyms like SJW as shorthand for these made up people, all the while ignoring your own selfish pettiness. If these imaginary people aren't good people, then you don't have to be either.

Since I am smarter, and more considerate in reality than you are, I realized that I and my family can't help everyone. We sat down as a family, children included, and prioritized our time and effort, and put abused children, disabled, and homeless at the top of a rather sad, long list of human misery and prioritized accordingly. As part of our financial planning, we set a budget for charity, and decided that paying down debt first would allow us to take the money that would have gone to large financial institutions, could instead go to people who actually need it. We give a little bit to a lot of causes, and some more than others. Next year, because of what we have done this year, we will double our spending on charity and can comfortably maintain that level.

You probably wouldn't understand terms like time value of money, free cash flows, and marginal income, or marginal utility. I could try to sit down with spreadsheet and show you that I can do more over the long term to help if I first pay down debts for a year, but you are likely too stupid to understand what you see. It involves math.

Snakeboy seemingly likes to fancy himself a bit investor type, and he doesn't seem to understand the time value of money either, or doesn't want to, because he wants to feel superior too.

What I find ultimately amusing, is that I left out a few other details of what I have done, just to see what Snakeboy, and now you apparently, would do with information that suggests I don't do much.

You chose to say, essentially, "Well we shouldn't help because RG who says we should, doesn't really do anything either".

This really marks you both as people with poor critical thinking skills. You did exactly what conservatives almost always do, which is fail spectacularly at moral and logical reasoning. I might be a murderer, but if I say "you shouldn't murder people", that doesn't mean that murder is ok. The truth of the statement "you shouldn't murder" stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who says it.

The truth of the statment "we should help more" stands or falls on its own merits.

Tossing a life line to someone drowning doesn't take a genius. It just takes someone who realizes that other people have value, and who can do what is right.

You don't actually want to do anything about situations, just talk about it, blog, comment over coffee in a protected environment. Then you'll recharge their "I'm an activist, I matter" battery and be good for another few weeks until you find someone else to imagine yourself superior to, or another "SJW" topic emerges, then it's back to the keyboard or coffee shop for more activism. The Conservative Avenger to the rescue of those poor oppressed white christians.

[DMC]

This is common. People like youself have a goal of feeling better about themselves, which means they have to feel they are better than others. I would guess you do even less than I do. You don't actually do anything about any situation, because you are selfish, and well, stupid. It doesn't occur to you that other people might actually genuinely care, because empathy is something that eludes you, in your rush to feel superior, however flimsy the reason.

Everyone wants to feel better about themselves. Some just aren't self delusional to the point where they think blogging and bitching in comments sections, Facebook, Twitter and coffee shops actually matters. When I feel strongly about something I act on it, and blogging isn't acting - it's acting like you're acting.


You see a tiny bit of information, think you know enough to determine reality, then build up some imaginary person out of ignorance, spite, and selfishness. This imaginary person allows you to feel superior, so you can toss out cute acronyms like SJW as shorthand for these made up people, all the while ignoring your own selfish pettiness. If these imaginary people aren't good people, then you don't have to be either.

I know reality, it's painted all over this place. They could be good people, but they are full of shit. Those two aren't mutually exclusive.


Since I am smarter, and more considerate in reality than you are, I realized that I and my family can't help everyone. We sat down as a family, children included, and prioritized our time and effort, and put abused children, disabled, and homeless at the top of a rather sad, long list of human misery and prioritized accordingly. As part of our financial planning, we set a budget for charity, and decided that paying down debt first would allow us to take the money that would have gone to large financial institutions, could instead go to people who actually need it. We give a little bit to a lot of causes, and some more than others. Next year, because of what we have done this year, we will double our spending on charity and can comfortably maintain that level.

Of course, and I decided that paying off my mortgage and stuffing my retirement account to the brim would allow me, post mortem, to be more charitable.

"Mom... I'm hungry, we haven't eaten in a week, what are we going to do?"

"Son, as soon as RandomGuy catches up on his bills, he'll ship us some Ramen"

"Top Ramen I hope"

"Of course, don't be silly, we wouldn't eat it otherwise"

"RandomGuy is our hero, or will be when he catches up on his bills"

"What about DMC?"

"He's a prick, fuck him"


You probably wouldn't understand terms like time value of money, free cash flows, and marginal income, or marginal utility. I could try to sit down with spreadsheet and show you that I can do more over the long term to help if I first pay down debts for a year, but you are likely too stupid to understand what you see. It involves math.

If you only got paid for your blogging...


Snakeboy seemingly likes to fancy himself a bit investor type, and he doesn't seem to understand the time value of money either, or doesn't want to, because he wants to feel superior too.

I understand you need money, who doesn't. I just don't sit around pretending I'm saving the world, when I'm doing what everyone else is doing which is to "catch up on my bills".

You lot are the real judgmental ones. I don't give a shit if you donate or not. I give to St Jude all the time, but I don't point at you and call you careless because you want to be solvent first. Your empathy is up to you. Deeds, not words.


What I find ultimately amusing, is that I left out a few other details of what I have done, just to see what Snakeboy, and now you apparently, would do with information that suggests I don't do much.

Then you have your reward: you're bragging online about how charitable you are. Great for you. I just lifted up my left asscheek and farted.


You chose to say, essentially, "Well we shouldn't help because RG who says we should, doesn't really do anything either".

No, we should help if we feel we need to, why brag about it? Are you going to win the internet?


This really marks you both as people with poor critical thinking skills. You did exactly what conservatives almost always do, which is fail spectacularly at moral and logical reasoning. I might be a murderer, but if I say "you shouldn't murder people", that doesn't mean that murder is ok. The truth of the statement "you shouldn't murder" stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who says it.

Who gives a fuck what it marks with you? How many hopeless families will die so you can catch up on your bathroom upgrade payments?

Exactly, I don't know either.


The truth of the statment "we should help more" stands or falls on its own merits.

Then it doesn't need to be said. "I should help more" is more appropriate.


Tossing a life line to someone drowning doesn't take a genius. It just takes someone who realizes that other people have value, and who can do what is right.

Good thing you came along, charity didn't exist prior to that.


You don't actually want to do anything about situations, just talk about it, blog, comment over coffee in a protected environment. Then you'll recharge their "I'm an activist, I matter" battery and be good for another few weeks until you find someone else to imagine yourself superior to, or another "SJW" topic emerges, then it's back to the keyboard or coffee shop for more activism. The Conservative Avenger to the rescue of those poor oppressed white christians.

There goes the race card. SJW through and through. Probably white, embarrassed by it, feels he needs to contribute to the non-white struggle but damn, those college loans and other daily costs of 1st world living just make it so hard.

I'm atheist.

Jeez you're stupid.

[boutons_deux]

The SJW types have a goal of feeling better about themselves,

goddamn, you're stupid and a fucking racist

[DMC]

The SJW types have a goal of feeling better about themselves,

goddamn, you're stupid and a fucking racist
What's the word you keep using instead of the N word?

RG says "white christians" and you call me racist for saying "SJW"?

:lol, you tweaked off motherfucker.

[RandomGuy]

Everyone wants to feel better about themselves. Some just aren't self delusional to the point where they think blogging and bitching in comments sections, Facebook, Twitter and coffee shops actually matters. When I feel strongly about something I act on it, and blogging isn't acting - it's acting like you're acting.

I know reality, it's painted all over this place. They could be good people, but they are full of shit. Those two aren't mutually exclusive.

Of course, and I decided that paying off my mortgage and stuffing my retirement account to the brim would allow me, post mortem, to be more charitable.

"Mom... I'm hungry, we haven't eaten in a week, what are we going to do?"

"Son, as soon as RandomGuy catches up on his bills, he'll ship us some Ramen"

"Top Ramen I hope"

"Of course, don't be silly, we wouldn't eat it otherwise"

"RandomGuy is our hero, or will be when he catches up on his bills"

"What about DMC?"

"He's a prick, fuck him"

If you only got paid for your blogging...

I understand you need money, who doesn't. I just don't sit around pretending I'm saving the world, when I'm doing what everyone else is doing which is to "catch up on my bills".

You lot are the real judgmental ones. I don't give a shit if you donate or not. I give to St Jude all the time, but I don't point at you and call you careless because you want to be solvent first. Your empathy is up to you. Deeds, not words.

Then you have your reward: you're bragging online about how charitable you are. Great for you. I just lifted up my left asscheek and farted.

No, we should help if we feel we need to, why brag about it? Are you going to win the internet?

Who gives a fuck what it marks with you? How many hopeless families will die so you can catch up on your bathroom upgrade payments?

Exactly, I don't know either.

Then it doesn't need to be said. "I should help more" is more appropriate.

Good thing you came along, charity didn't exist prior to that.


There goes the race card. SJW through and through. Probably white, embarrassed by it, feels he needs to contribute to the non-white struggle but damn, those college loans and other daily costs of 1st world living just make it so hard.

I'm atheist.

Jeez you're stupid.


You and Snakeboy made an issue of what I do, and how little you think that is. So describing what I actually do is "bragging?" (shrugs) Whatever. You don't get to have it both ways.

RG: "My strategy involves planning and using the time value of money concept to max out what I can actually do. It involves math you dont' understand because you are an idiot."

DMC: [Statements attempting to make fun of RG that demonstrate a complete ignorance of this financial concept]

(sighs)

You don't know what you don't know, and when someone tells you there is something you don't understand, you double down anyway. I guess I could have been a bit nicer. That's on me.



.

[RandomGuy]

I just don't sit around pretending I'm saving the world,


realized that I and my family can't help everyone.

Neither do I.

What I can do matters very little in the grand scheme. It sucks, but that is reality. I don't think I am saving the world at all, just trying to make it better for having been here. No more. No less.

[DMC]

You and Snakeboy made an issue of what I do, and how little you think that is. So describing what I actually do is "bragging?" (shrugs) Whatever. You don't get to have it both ways.

RG: "My strategy involves planning and using the time value of money concept to max out what I can actually do. It involves math you dont' understand because you are an idiot."

DMC: [Statements attempting to make fun of RG that demonstrate a complete ignorance of this financial concept]

(sighs)

You don't know what you don't know, and when someone tells you there is something you don't understand, you double down anyway. I guess I could have been a bit nicer. That's on me.



.

No I didn't. I was commenting on SJWs in general. You just feel guilty and you're lashing out.

[DMC]

Neither do I.

What I can do matters very little in the grand scheme. It sucks, but that is reality. I don't think I am saving the world at all, just trying to make it better for having been here. No more. No less.

Then that makes you feel better. People are aimed in different directions because they have different concerns. If people took care of their own families we'd be fine, and I'm not saying you don't. I care about others, only the "others" I care about don't really extend past my family and friends, and children in general.

If you feel panicky about it, join some organization like the Peace Corps and off you go, or ferry in like Sean Penn, do a photo op with you squinting and pointing, wearing a military insignia hat when you despise the military (not you in particular), and then head back to your penthouse for a mocha latte.

[RandomGuy]

No I didn't. I was commenting on SJWs in general. You just feel guilty and you're lashing out.

Feel guilty?

No, not really.

I am however, committed to pointing out that "conservative" philosophy is morally bankrupt, especially the war on the poor being waged by the GOP.

The fact that conservative shit themselves being scared of women and children, just so they can use "OMG look out for the terrorists" as some sort of intellectually dishonest cover for mild racism, should also be pointed out.

I find the "the Syrian refugees are dangerous" to be unsupported by the facts. We can afford to do more, but don't because... why exactly? We don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy?

People are more important than money.

[DMC]

Feel guilty?

No, not really.

I am however, committed to pointing out that "conservative" philosophy is morally bankrupt, especially the war on the poor being waged by the GOP.

The fact that conservative shit themselves being scared of women and children, just so they can use "OMG look out for the terrorists" as some sort of intellectually dishonest cover for mild racism, should also be pointed out.

I find the "the Syrian refugees are dangerous" to be unsupported by the facts. We can afford to do more, but don't because... why exactly? We don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy?

People are more important than money.
Superficial characterization of conservatives is how you lost to Trump. You haven't learned shit.

[RandomGuy]

Superficial characterization of conservatives is how you lost to Trump. You haven't learned shit.

"superficial"?

I can go waaay beyond superficial.

I can flesh out in great detail, how so many conservative policies and rhetoric, consistently fail to do what they claim they do, and are so spectacularly bad they deserve all the ridicule and scorn one can muster.

Where would you like to start?

We are already on the moral and economic failure of limiting refugees. I have been concentrating on the moral failure, but there are some fairly decent studies on how immigrant populations tend to assimilate and add to the economy in the long run.

[RandomGuy]

This paper analyzes how the implicit difference in time horizons between refugees and economic immigrants affects subsequent human capital investments and wage assimilation. The analysis uses the 1980 and 1990 Integrated Public Use Samples of the Census to study labor market outcomes of immigrants who arrived in the United States from 1975 to 1980. I find that in 1980 refugee immigrants in this cohort earned 6% less and worked 14% fewer hours than economic immigrants. Both had approximately the same level of English skills. The two immigrant groups had made substantial gains by 1990; however, refugees had made greater gains. In fact, the labor market outcomes of refugee immigrants surpassed those of economic immigrants. In 1990, refugees from the 1975-1980 arrival cohort earned 20% more, worked 4% more hours, and improved their English skills by 11% relative to economic immigrants. The higher rates of human capital accumulation for refugee immigrants contribute to these findings.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003465304323031058

Refugees tend to do better in the long run than economic immigrants.

[RandomGuy]

This article reviews the recent evidence on US immigration, focusing on two key questions: (1) Does immigration reduce the labour market opportunities of less skilled natives? (2) Have immigrants who arrived after the 1965 Immigration Reform Act been successfully assimilated? Overall, evidence that immigrants have harmed the opportunities of less educated natives is scant. On the question of assimilation, the success of the US-born children of immigrants is a key yardstick. By this metric, post-1965 immigrants are doing reasonably well. Even children of the least educated immigrant origin groups have closed most of the education gap with the children of natives.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.01037.x/full

Over time, all immigrant populations assimilate and approach natives. Meaning they compensate for falling birth rates which are negative in every major western industrialized country.

I can provide some data on how economies over time are dependent on demographics for growth.

We need more young people to sustain our historic 3% growth, although this long-term average is likely to fall, simply due to demographics.

Conservative policies limiting refugees and immigration will hurt our long term prospects for economic growth of the USA.

This is a rather common thing pointed out by publications that deal with such data, such at the Economist.

[Thread]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.01037.x/full

Over time, all immigrant populations assimilate and approach natives. Meaning they compensate for falling birth rates which are negative in every major western industrialized country.

I can provide some data on how economies over time are dependent on demographics for growth.

We need more young people to sustain our historic 3% growth, although this long-term average is likely to fall, simply due to demographics.

Conservative policies limiting refugees and immigration will hurt our long term prospects for economic growth of the USA.

This is a rather common thing pointed out by publications that deal with such data, such at the Economist.

I'll just bet it will.

[DMC]

"superficial"?

I can go waaay beyond superficial.

I can flesh out in great detail, how so many conservative policies and rhetoric, consistently fail to do what they claim they do, and are so spectacularly bad they deserve all the ridicule and scorn one can muster.

Where would you like to start?

We are already on the moral and economic failure of limiting refugees. I have been concentrating on the moral failure, but there are some fairly decent studies on how immigrant populations tend to assimilate and add to the economy in the long run.

How many refugees live with you?

[RandomGuy]

Then that makes you feel better. People are aimed in different directions because they have different concerns. If people took care of their own families we'd be fine, and I'm not saying you don't. I care about others, only the "others" I care about don't really extend past my family and friends, and children in general.

If you feel panicky about it, join some organization like the Peace Corps and off you go, or ferry in like Sean Penn, do a photo op with you squinting and pointing, wearing a military insignia hat when you despise the military (not you in particular), and then head back to your penthouse for a mocha latte.

I have decided, over 20 years ago, that the best thing I can do, since I can't single-handedly save the world is raise children. I have two intelligent, thoughtful, polite, curious, kids. Being a good dad is the #1 priority for me.

Part of that is showing my kids what it means to be emphatic and kind, and to live for something outside myself.

Do I feel better for doing the right thing? Sure.

[RandomGuy]

How many refugees live with you?
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/11/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque
Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)
argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

(also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)
Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.


Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true.

Therefore, Y must not be true.

For an atheist, you sure make some of the same shitty arguments that religious people do.

[DMC]

I have decided, over 20 years ago, that the best thing I can do, since I can't single-handedly save the world is raise children. I have two intelligent, thoughtful, polite, curious, kids. Being a good dad is the #1 priority for me.

Part of that is showing my kids what it means to be emphatic and kind, and to live for something outside myself.

Do I feel better for doing the right thing? Sure.
And you think being empathetic and kind is getting online and bitching about other people?

Why aren't you spending all this time being kind? Empathy is a feeling. Feelings don't keep roofs up or bellies fed. Go work with Homes for Humanity or some other charity. We should almost never see you online unless you're doing a fundraiser.

[Thread]

And you think being empathetic and kind is getting online and bitching about other people?

Why aren't you spending all this time being kind? Empathy is a feeling. Feelings don't keep roofs up or bellies fed. Go work with Homes for Humanity or some other charity. We should almost never see you online unless you're doing a fundraiser.

D M C

[DMC]

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/11/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque
Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)
argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

(also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)
Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.



For an atheist, you sure make some of the same shitty arguments that religious people do.

It's a question. I didn't say it negates the point you weren't even making.

Plus you prefaced with this "I can flesh out in great detail, how so many conservative policies and rhetoric, consistently fail to do what they claim they do"

Is that your tu quoque?

It's only a fallacy if you made a statement like "refugees should never be limited" and I responded with "wrong, because none live with you".

The truth is that you don't possess the courage of your convictions. It's really easy to sit in your home and tell the world how they should be accepting of refugees, but you're not. Tell yourself that, then serve as an example instead of a bullhorn.

[RandomGuy]

[restates criticism for the 10th time].

um, sure. It is just as valid now, as it was the first time.

You seem upset that someone might criticize your inaction.

Smells like... cognitive dissonance.

[RandomGuy]

The truth is that you don't possess the courage of your convictions..

I do.

You can wish that to be true all you want. That won't make it any more true than the people wanting the magic man in the sky to be true means there is some magic man in the clouds that is watching you masturbate.

More cognitive dissonance.

[RandomGuy]

anyhoo

Rather than point out your moral and intellectual failings, I will take my ass to a bar for some beer.

Texas Democratic veterans are having a meet and greet. Time to scoot.

[DMC]

um, sure. It is just as valid now, as it was the first time.

You seem upset that someone might criticize your inaction.

Smells like... cognitive dissonance.


I do.

You can wish that to be true all you want. That won't make it any more true than the people wanting the magic man in the sky to be true means there is some magic man in the clouds that is watching you masturbate.

More cognitive dissonance.

All you have now is your ghost of a windmill named religion that I don't even subscribe to. Keep jousting that. You've stated yourself you want to help, but you don't have the ability "right now".

When you get the ability and you actually do something besides run your suck online, then you can climb back up on your high horse. Right now you're indistinguishable from a person who openly claims to not give a fuck, especially to the needy who get nothing from either side. Your nothing isn't more special than mine.

[DMC]

anyhoo

Rather than point out your moral and intellectual failings, I will take my ass to a bar for some beer.

Texas Democratic veterans are having a meet and greet. Time to scoot.

Too bad that beer money isn't going to needy families.

[SnakeBoy]

anyhoo

Rather than point out your moral and intellectual failings, I will take my ass to a bar for some beer.

Texas Democratic veterans are having a meet and greet. Time to scoot.

You should give that up until you get those bills paid off dumbass

[RandomGuy]

US fertility rate hits a record low

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/health/fertility-rate-lowest-recorded-2017/

[boutons_deux]

US fertility rate hits a record low

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/health/fertility-rate-lowest-recorded-2017/

no paid maternity long-term leave

no "maternal subsidy" per child

no bonus for having a child

sperm counts down 50% in 40+ years (BigChem poisoning everyone, everything)

no free or very cheap govt day care or govt pre-K (day care often matches or exceeds what working women are paid)

while oligarchy sucks $Ts out of the pockets of the lower 80%

so the govt helps NO ONE to have children, while the oligarchy impoverishes everyone and will cut public assistance to the bone.

You're not imagining it: the rich really are hoarding economic growth

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/piketty-saez-zucman-income-growth-inequality-stagnation-chart

(the lower 4 quintiles of ) America: fucked and unfuckable, and the fucking is gaining momentum.

[RandomGuy]

You should give that up until you get those bills paid off dumbass

That isn't pragmatism.

That is you setting an arbitrary moral standard that completely fails to meet any test of common sense.


Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you devoted your life to fixing problem X?"
Person A: "No.
DMC: "Then X is not a problem we should do anything about."

This fails if I can identify an X that is clearly a problem that needs to be collectively addressed, which is trivially easy to do, i.e. child abuse, malnutrition, foster homes, etc, even if any one person does not act.

"If a person stating a problem doesn't devote their lives to a problem, then it isn't a problem."

Let's put your definition of a problem to a test then.

Do you think that child abuse is a problem?

[SnakeBoy]

That isn't pragmatism.

That is you setting an arbitrary moral standard that completely fails to meet any test of common sense.


Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you devoted your life to fixing problem X?"
Person A: "No.
DMC: "Then X is not a problem we should do anything about."

This fails if I can identify an X that is clearly a problem that needs to be collectively addressed, which is trivially easy to do, i.e. child abuse, malnutrition, foster homes, etc, even if any one person does not act.

"If a person stating a problem doesn't devote their lives to a problem, then it isn't a problem."

Let's put your definition of a problem to a test then.

Do you think that child abuse is a problem?

:lol

Person A: If you are trying to get out of debt you should give up that bar hopping
RandomGuy: :cry Arbitrary Moral Standard :cry

[DMC]

:lol

Person A: If you are trying to get out of debt you should give up that bar hopping
RandomGuy: :cry Arbitrary Moral Standard :cry

RandomGuy forgot which thread he was responding to. Got all flustered. lol

[RandomGuy]

:lol

Person A: If you are trying to get out of debt you should give up that bar hopping
RandomGuy: :cry Arbitrary Moral Standard :cry

More reasoning failure. The stink of it follows you around.

Almost as if you are more interested in trolling than a serious conversation.