Reply With Quote
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.
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.
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.
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 ed royally for it.
What a dumb argument. This coming from a self-professed intellectual superior.
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.
Well, let's get into it then.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 ed royally for it.
What a dumb argument. This coming from a self-professed intellectual superior.
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.
How did you not do that with the meme you posted?
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 is mental masturbation. Which is fine I guess, but you have a horrible tendency of dropping your load all over your face.
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.
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 ed royally for it.
We have quite a bit of screening already. How much more do we need? What is reasonable? what is practical?
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.
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.
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
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 bull . 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 back to their hole 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?We have quite a bit of screening already. How much more do we need? What is reasonable? what is practical?
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?
Not really.
How many of them are there in the applicants?
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.
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.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-11-2016 at 03:28 PM.
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.
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 (is this the part where I'm supposed to get all teary-eyed, because I can't allow myself to submit to blind compassion?
Or you're black
I don't see any comment about what the screening process actually entails, nor any concrete proposals for getting to your comfort level.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 (
Do you know what the screening process entails for Syrian refugees?
What does the assimilation of a black person entail?
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
