A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, And Even Libertarian

[AZJoe]

Well speak up then... I only asked about 4 or 5 times if anyone watched them..

The goofy films contradict Thor. The very first film repeatedly establishes that the problem are a very small subset of Muslim people, and that there are myriad sects of Islam with far varying beliefs. The clip however fails to identify that the subset is Wahhabism/Salafism sponsored by Saudi Arabia as well as Washington. Thus the very clip Thor relies upon directly negates the universal collectivist mindset of Muslims that Thor promotes.

Further, for every clip depicting Muslim imbeciles or gang one can can easily find or make hundreds of clips depicting people of Muslim faith that are the direct opposite - peaceful, charitable, tolerant, productive, intelligent, benign, etc.

What the clips actually establish is that certain nations have horrible to no vetting process for immigrants, refugees, and visitors. As if we did not know. What do you expect when certain nations accept hundreds of thousands to millions of refugees that are not and cannot be vetted due to the war-torn destruction of reliable records and process, and come from areas where there are widespread defeated Wahhabi factions (Washington's Al Qaeda, ISIS, FSA, etc.) that have embedded themselves into the refugees to escape destruction. Well Duh. With such a process, of course you are going to end up with thousands of bad and violent individuals. It simply confirms what we already knew about certain nations' vetting process - they have none of any practical effect.
There is no Ah-ha revelation in these goofy clips.

Nor do the clips establish any universal trait inherent in all of nearly 2 billion individuals of the world's population.
It does the opposite. It merely reveals the obvious - that not only are there varying Muslim beliefs, but also that all people, including Muslims, are individuals and have different beliefs. Some are bad and when a nation has no vetting process for millions of refugees they will end up with thousands of bad people that form criminal gangs. When that nation(s) further fails to enforce its own laws against aggressive initiation of violence by those individuals, it promotes those criminals.

The clips do not prove the validity of the collectivist mindset; Rather the clips prove a failure of bad government vetting and policies. It shows that these governments have their own collectivist mindset by their refusing to properly vet these refugees the governments fail to recognize that all refugees are not uniformly alike, that they are individuals, and that many of the refugees will be criminals or violent and/or former Al Qaeda/ISIS/FSA Wahhabis.

 

[Superfluous Man]

If you believe that somebody is guilty of conspiring to commit a crime and want to punish them for that by violating what would be their natural rights if they were not criminals, then you have to follow due process and prove them guilty of that crime before doing that.

It's immoral to support some kind of pre-crime enforcement against people because you believe they are more likely to be future criminals because of some label they apply to themselves.

This has to be done on an individual basis, one person at a time.

 

[kahless]

And there you have it. Resorting to feeble minded logical fallacy of the ad hominem (false and delusional based no less) is the last refuge of weak minded when their position has no substance.
It is akin to WaPo accusing Dr. Paul, and anyone else, of being a "Russian agent" if they don't agree with lies and propaganda.

So in the mind of Kahless, one who rejects the collectivist mindset and instead responds with facts and logic and consistently promotes peace and prosperity, individualism, individual rights, anti-tax, anti-statist, pro-liberty, pro-free market, freedom of choice, freedom of association, self-ownership, property rights, individual self defense, non-aggression principal, must be Muslim.
This is not reason. Such comments are irrational, illogical, dishonest, suggesting emotional based form of psychosis.

I honestly did not mean that as an attack but rather an observation from your posting history. It is not about what you describe but rather I cannot get my head around why you ignore #2 - #7, and respond only with #1 and #8, below. Well, if you take such offense to it I suppose you are not?

You see I want to live consistently in a region that "promotes peace and prosperity, individualism, individual rights, anti-tax, anti-statist, pro-liberty, pro-free market, freedom of choice, freedom of association, self-ownership, property rights, individual self defense and non-aggression principal". Your support of policies make this impossible in my lifetime short and long term is why I came to the conclusion that I did.

Not once did I attack anyone here but I cannot say the same for you and Ender for my disagreeing with your love for bringing people here that want to deny me life and liberty.

1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.

2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.

3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.

4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up they always go right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases they make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration. Conversation is refocused back to #1.

7. No recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time. They refocus the conversation back on #1.

8. If someone points out that #1 is not entirely the issue and raises issues 2 to 7, they are immediately slammed as full of "hate", fearful, a Trump supporter as an epithet , called a Neocon, a Nazi or anti-semite, a hypocrite, demeaned in some manner, or some other personal attack or falsely accused of a personal attack and are hit with negative reps.

9. When confronted with this list they claim to have addressed these points when they have not and then they redirect the conversation back to #8 or #1. They even post their own fake number list that does not reflect these points made above which is all about foreign intervention, #1 again. While again, never addressing the list above.

Thinking about this list more I could probably add more like, "being made a foreigner in my own land with a language and culture I do not understand is unfair to do to people living here". But we have not gotten that far in the thread yet for you and Ender to deny it is a problem for people living here?

 

[Superfluous Man]

eigner in my own land with a language and culture I do not understand is unfair to do to people living here".

That is nonsense.

Nobody would interfere with your right to speak whatever language you want to whomever else wants to speak it with you and live according to whatever culture you want. The fact that other people in your vicinity choose to exercise that very same right to speak some other language with one another and live according to a different culture is none of your business, not unfair to you in any way, and not something you or anyone else have any right to impede.

 

[otherone]

I honestly did not mean that as an attack but rather an observation from your posting history. It is not about what you describe but rather I cannot get my head around why you ignore #2 - #7, and respond only with #1 and #8, below. Well, if you take such offense to it I suppose you are not?

You see I want to live consistently in a region that "promotes peace and prosperity, individualism, individual rights, anti-tax, anti-statist, pro-liberty, pro-free market, freedom of choice, freedom of association, self-ownership, property rights, individual self defense and non-aggression principal". Your support of policies make this impossible in my lifetime short and long term is why I came to the conclusion that I did.

Not once did I attack anyone here but I cannot say the same for you and Ender for my disagreeing with your love for bringing people here that want to deny me life and liberty.



Thinking about this list more I could probably add more like, "being made a foreigner in my own land with a language and culture I do not understand is unfair to do to people living here". But we have not gotten that far in the thread yet for you and Ender to deny it is a problem for people living here?

Haven't gotten that far? It was fairly obvious that is the underlying premise of your entire argument.

 

[kahless]

That is nonsense.

Nobody would interfere with your right to speak whatever language you want to whomever else wants to speak it with you. The fact that other people in your vicinity choose to exercise that very same right to speak some other language with one another is none of your business, not unfair to you in any way, and not something you or anyone else have any right to impede.

Really, nonsense? Like the US is made up solely of wealthy people that can simply pickup and move when the culture or language changes in their community to some rural homestead to live among their own? How many times do you expect people to have the ability to keep doing this in their lifetime?

Just stick your head in the sand and completely deny the millions of middle class and poor people in cities and suburbia that are being outnumbered by immigration and wake up one day to culture and language shock.

The community which I was raised went from 90% European English speaking white to 20%. It is not easy especially for senior citizens to adapt to the culture shock, discrimination and languages issues in their community. This is taking place all over the US in cities and surburbia. People that promote open borders are effectively promoting abuse of the native population.

 

[kahless]

Haven't gotten that far? It was fairly obvious that is the underlying premise of your entire argument.

Care to address #2 - #7?

1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.

2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.

3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.

4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up they always go right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases they make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration. Conversation is refocused back to #1.

7. No recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time. They refocus the conversation back on #1.

8. If someone points out that #1 is not entirely the issue and raises issues 2 to 7, they are immediately slammed as full of "hate", fearful, a Trump supporter as an epithet , called a Neocon, a Nazi or anti-semite, a hypocrite, demeaned in some manner, or some other personal attack or falsely accused of a personal attack and are hit with negative reps.

9. When confronted with this list they claim to have addressed these points when they have not and then they redirect the conversation back to #8 or #1. They even post their own fake number list that does not reflect these points made above which is all about foreign intervention, #1 again. While again, never addressing the list above.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Really, nonsense? Like the US is made up solely of wealthy people that can simply pickup and move when the culture or language changes in their community to some rural homestead to live among their own? How many times do you expect people to have the ability to keep doing this in their lifetime?

No. But just what are you calling "their community"? As if the culture and language their neighbors speak and live in the privacy of their own homes, or in communication between one another, is any of their business. If you want to keep speaking English, and living according to whatever cultural norms you want, and demand that your children marry other likeminded people and raise their kids that way, go right ahead. Your language and culture will last for as long as they have people who share your views and want to preserve them. Leave your neighbors alone. They don't have to participate along with you if they don't want to.

And we certainly can't tolerate a government that arrogates to itself the authority to legislate for all of us what cultural practices we need to follow and avoid, and what vocabulary and grammar we need to use, so as to conform to some official American language and culture.

 

[otherone]

Care to address #2 - #7?

UGH. REALLY?

Your concerns are completely garbled. You throw terms around like they themselves are an argument, without considering what those terms mean, or imply. Any attempt to debate actual content with you is diverted to previous, unsubstantiated, concerns.
You are simply xenophobic. You whine like a SJW, wringing your hands about being a victim. You try to conceal this by speaking of "risk management", and government-doled "libertarianism".

 

[otherone]

And we certainly can't tolerate a government that arrogates to itself the authority to legislate for all of us what cultural practices we need to follow and avoid, and what vocabulary and grammar we need to use, so as to conform to some official American language and culture.

Especially as the official culture is revisionist.

 

[kahless]

No. But just what are you calling "their community"? As if the culture and language their neighbors speak and live in the privacy of their own homes, or in communication between one another, is any of their business. If you want to keep speaking English, and living according to whatever cultural norms you want, go right ahead. Leave your neighbors alone. They don't have to participate along with you if they don't want to.

Added #8. thx

1. They always focus on blaming US intervention 100% of the time as the cause of Islamic terrorism without recognizing or room for recognizing the following issues below.

2. No recognition that the past cannot be undone and for risk management based on what they believe are past wrongs the US has committed. They always re-direct the conversation back to #1.

3. Absolutely no concern for radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution from what they believe from #1. They refocus the conversation back on #1.

4. No mention or concern for US victims or potential US victims. When it is brought up they always go right back to #1 and/or the victims of #1.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases they make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam. Conversation is redirected back to #1.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration. Conversation is refocused back to #1.

7. No recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time. They refocus the conversation back on #1.

8. No recognition of displacement of native population and the resulting discrimination, culture and language issues it presents for them. Failure to recognize balkanizing any region historically has resulted in civil unrest - ethnic strife.

9. If someone points out that #1 is not entirely the issue and raises issues 2 to 7, they are immediately slammed as full of "hate", fearful, a Trump supporter as an epithet , called a Neocon, a Nazi or anti-semite, a hypocrite, demeaned in some manner, or some other personal attack or falsely accused of a personal attack and are hit with negative reps.

10. When confronted with this list they claim to have addressed these points when they have not and then they redirect the conversation back to #8 or #1. They even post their own fake number list that does not reflect these points made above which is all about foreign intervention, #1 again. While again, never addressing the list above.

 

[CaptUSA]

If we lived in the 1880s with no entrenched bureaucracy tentacles in play, I'd probably reconsider my muslim ban perspective. But it comes down to a 'don't feed the animals' moral hazard that Dr. Paul has extensively discussed.

Finally addresses the real problem with immigration. Still thinks you fix a government-created problem by adding MOAR government.

 

[CaptUSA]

UGH. REALLY?

Your concerns are completely garbled. You throw terms around like they themselves are an argument, without considering what those terms mean, or imply. Any attempt to debate actual content with you is diverted to previous, unsubstantiated, concerns.
You are simply xenophobic. You whine like a SJW, wringing your hands about being a victim. You try to conceal this by speaking of "risk management", and government-doled "libertarianism".

Outta rep. But exactly spot on!

 

[Superfluous Man]

The community which I was raised went from 90% European English speaking white to 20%. It is not easy especially for senior citizens to adapt to the culture shock, discrimination and languages issues in their community. This is taking place all over the US in cities and surburbia. People that promote open borders are effectively promoting abuse of the native population.

I can't fathom what kind of logical contortions must go through your mind to be able to call other people being non-European and speaking a language other than English with one another a form of abuse committed against anyone.

If the racist elderly people you're talking about want to confine their interactions to people just like themselves, that's their right, whether those people make up 20% of some larger population or 90% of it. But interfering with the rights of other people to be different from them is not their right.

 

[kahless]

Outta rep. But exactly spot on!

So what you and [MENTION=32644]otherone[/MENTION] are saying is:

1. You believe US intervention 100% is responsible for Islamic terrorism without any recognition of the inherent problems with Islam or the following issues:

2. No risk management based recognition what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed.

3. Have no concern of radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution.

4. Have no concern for US victims or potential US victims.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration.

7. No recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time.

8. No recognition of displacement of native population and the resulting discrimination, culture and language issues it presents for them. Failure to recognize balkanizing any region historically has resulted in civil unrest - ethnic strife.

???

 

[otherone]

So what you and [MENTION=32644]otherone[/MENTION] are saying is:

1. You believe US intervention 100% is responsible for Islamic terrorism without any recognition of the following issues:

2. No risk management based recognition what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed.

3. Have no concern of radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution.

4. Have no concern for US victims or potential US victims.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion and in some cases they make a moral equivalence to modern Christianity for which there is no Christian terrorism on the scale of radical Islam.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration.

7. No recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time.

8. No recognition of displacement of native population and the resulting discrimination, culture and language issues it presents for them. Failure to recognize balkanizing any region historically has resulted in civil unrest - ethnic strife.

???

Can't speak for CaptUSA, but it's futile chasing strawmen who move around goalposts.

 

[kahless]

Can't speak for CaptUSA, but it's futile chasing strawmen who move around goalposts.

I cleaned it up specifically for you after your complaint that it was garbled. Which ones do not reflect your viewpoint?

1. You believe US intervention 100% is responsible for Islamic terrorism without any recognition of the inherent problems with Islam or the following issues:

2. No risk management on what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed.

3. Have no concern of radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution.

4. Have no concern for US victims or potential US victims.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration.

7. No recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time.

8. No recognition of displacement of native population and the resulting discrimination, culture and language issues it presents for them. Failure to recognize balkanizing any region historically has resulted in civil unrest - ethnic strife.

???

 

[CaptUSA]

So what you and [MENTION=32644]otherone[/MENTION] are saying is:

1. You believe US intervention 100% is responsible for Islamic terrorism without any recognition of the inherent problems with Islam or the following issues:

2. No risk management based recognition what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed.

3. Have no concern of radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution.

4. Have no concern for US victims or potential US victims.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration.

7. No recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time.

8. No recognition of displacement of native population and the resulting discrimination, culture and language issues it presents for them. Failure to recognize balkanizing any region historically has resulted in civil unrest - ethnic strife.

???

I'll play, but your strawmen terms are silly...

1. Please show me where I said that - otherwise, please acknowledge that you're making shit up.
2. Risk management??!!! Holy Shyte! Perhaps a little context of the risk level compared to the wealth and liberty given up to mitigate those "risks"!
3. I certainly have concerns. They just don't make me irrational. I can still see good individuals among the bad ones.
4. Same concern I have for any victims of senseless violence - not sure why we're bringing the thought-crimes into this. (Does is matter to you why a crazy kills?)
5. I have more concern about the authoritarian methods you would use, to be honest...
6. I have issues with the welfare state. Period. This is the real problem. End that and the other problems go away. But you don't solve a government-created problem with MOAR government. That's the statist fantasy.
7. I don't worry about mass immigration for that reason - I'm already swarmed in a nation of people that make a libertarian society impossible - you included. Should I collectivize all those people, too, and call for MOAR government to oust them, maybe???
8. This is only a problem when you have governments with too much power. Take away their power and restore minority rights (you know... the smallest minority - individual rights) and that problem ceases to exist. You certainly don't want to give governments MOAR power!

9. Treat each person as an individual with inherent individual rights. Act on it. Believe it. And live it. Otherwise, you're just as big a problem as anyone else who ignores those things - regardless of their religion or ideology.

 

[otherone]

I cleaned it up specifically for you after your complaint that it was garbled. Which ones do not reflect your viewpoint?

Saying you "cleaned it up" doesn't mean it still makes any sense

1. You believe US intervention 100% is responsible for Islamic terrorism without any recognition of the inherent problems with Islam or the following issues:

You conflate Islamic with political terrorism. Were the IRA Catholic terrorists?

2. No risk management based recognition what you believe are past wrongs the US has committed.

You now, based solely on your assertion that Islam=Terror, believe individuals should be sanctioned.

3. Have no concern of radical Islam and jihadist immigration or retribution.

You now attempt to link individual behavior with imagined ideology. Ideas don't blow people up.

4. Have no concern for US victims or potential US victims.

I believe all human life is valuable. I certainly don't believe that "potential" allows alienating people's rights. That's the gun-control argument.

5. No concern over a statist authoritarian belief system masquerading as a religion.

Again, you make an unsubstantiated claim as an argument. You claiming Islam is a masquerade doesn't make it so.
There are plenty of Muslims who participate in the American political system.

6. Little to no concern of growing the welfare state due to immigration.

Is this an argument against Islam, or immigration, or the welfare state?

7. No recognition that mass immigration of peoples with opposing ideology will make individual liberty or any form of living in a libertarian like society impossible in our life time.

What is a "mass immigration"?

8. No recognition of displacement of native population and the resulting discrimination, culture and language issues it presents for them. Failure to recognize balkanizing any region historically has resulted in civil unrest - ethnic strife.

Are you afraid of becoming a minority?

???

???

 

[kahless]

I'll play, but your strawmen terms are silly...

1. Please show me where I said that - otherwise, please acknowledge that you're making shit up.

Or maybe he realizes how absurd it is to suggest someone might be dangerous to you just because he shares a religion with people who happen to be getting bombed relentlessly by our government?

2. Risk management??!!! Holy Shyte! Perhaps a little context of the risk level compared to the wealth and liberty given up to mitigate those "risks"!

You are against minimizing the risk by having some form of immigration controls such as a ban on Muslims from regions with activist terror cells.

3. I certainly have concerns. They just don't make me irrational. I can still see good individuals among the bad ones.
4. Same concern I have for any victims of senseless violence - not sure why we're bringing the thought-crimes into this. (Does is matter to you why a crazy kills?)
5. I have more concern about the authoritarian methods you would use, to be honest...

So again you have no issue with immigration of peoples that support and will implement an authoritarian belief system that we will be subject to.

6. I have issues with the welfare state. Period. This is the real problem. End that and the other problems go away. But you don't solve a government-created problem with MOAR government. That's the statist fantasy.
7. I don't worry about mass immigration for that reason - I'm already swarmed in a nation of people that make a libertarian society impossible - you included. Should I collectivize all those people, too, and call for MOAR government to oust them, maybe???

By importing people that use and believe in the welfare state they will eventually vote for MOAR government. Not only have you surrendered your beliefs to statism you are now advocating for statism using immigration as a tool to achieve the means.

8. This is only a problem when you have governments with too much power. Take away their power and restore minority rights (you know... the smallest minority - individual rights) and that problem ceases to exist. You certainly don't want to give governments MOAR power!

Does not change native population being made culturally and through language a stranger in their own lands. Failure to recognize balkanizing any region historically has resulted in civil unrest - ethnic strife.

Treat each person as an individual with inherent individual rights. Act on it. Believe it. And live it. Otherwise, you're just as big a problem as anyone else who ignores those things - regardless of their religion or ideology.

By supporting mass immigration of peoples that believe otherwise you are directly working against this belief.