Trump rhetoric and ghettoization/public Islamaphobia can definitely drive up local radicalism. So no, that's not necessarily true.

This is not at all obvious. Most muslim immigrants to the US are leaving behind fundamentalism and extremism. The potential terrorists among them are probably at least as dilute as the potential terrorists in the native US population (the mcveighs). Their presence may actually directly reduce the possibility of terrorism, on a per capita basis. Don't forget that all those columbine type killers are just as much terrorists as some guy that blows up a pressure cooker; one gets called a terrorist and the other a troubled youth for political reasons, not because the root causes are all that different (extreme social alienation coupled with psycopathy).

Also, it's worth keepin in mind that, compared to other rich nations (e.g. all of europe), the US has very few muslims, around 1% of its population.

Also, the US has one of the harshest immigration regimes in the developed world (in that it's hard to enter).

Finally, the minute you start discriminating against immigrants on the basis of religion or ideology you have basically conceded that the american dream is a farce and freedom of religion is bull****. I'm among those who think that's how it has been for a long time, but not everyone wants to give up on the goal.

How many times did they suicide bomb you?

florentinopeces dropping knowledge

Not that facts and reality matter to a trump supporter obviously but





If you're too pant-wettingly scared to have some delicious skittles because 3 in that bowl will kill you then stay away from muslims you giant fraidy cat. Don't try and take our skittles away from us just because you are a wickle scared babby.

Ok but now what if those are gmo skittles

Though to be fair you did recently make a thread where you expressed complete bafflement that someone wouldn't give up small benefits to prevent massive harms, regardless of how unlikely they thought that harm to be.

It would seem the precautionary principle is a flexible bitch

Principle of diminishing marginal returns and accepting rather than refusing Muslim immigration isn't a small benefit.

Why do you continue to play this game.

Isn't a small benefit to who?

I thought you were an open borders guy vhawk? Don't tell me you've boarded the trump train?

Hell no. The ban all muslim people are despicable and also morons. But they are making the same mistake you were making in that thread.

The precautionary principle, or pascals wager, is ****ing dumb. The maths matters.

And while the giant bowl graphic is a nice way of showing how dumb they are, it's a little bit disingenuous right. You imply that the only harm they care about is specifically that they themselves will specifically be killed by an act deemed terrorism. But that's PRPBABLY not the only actual concern. They probably also care about their kids for example. And maybe even a few other human beings. And they probably care about injured or otherwise less directly impacted. Or the financial costs of a terrorist attack. So now we've scaled that down quite a bit right? It's not a swimming pool any more. It's still probably quite a big bowl though.

Plus it implies that you are actually willing to have a serious risk tolerance discussion with these people. What if things change a bit? Terrorism is rare. It wouldn't take a massive change in conditions for the risks of terrorism to change dramatically. Are you willing to entertain a ban if we get to some tipping point? I'm not, so I would personally find it dishonest of me to really debate such a person on those terms.

If they're worried about their kids so much, they should probably just keep them away from actual swimming pools full of water, rather than this hypothetical one, because their kids are much more likely to drown then be killed in a terrorist attack.

And keep them out of cars. And maybe rid their house of any guns. Etc...

Are these mutually exclusive options? Is the opportunity cost of banning immigration that you aren't allowed to keep your kids away from swimming pools?

You're being obtuse.

Republicans are largely opposed to bringing in refugees citing public safety.

They're also largely opposed to gun reform, because **** public safety and statistics.

In the words of the immortal Dids, when you've gotten to the point of calling your opponent a hypocrite you've run out of arguments. Them being wrong on some other topic doesn't make them wrong here.

And aren't you just pointing out your own hypocrisy? You presumably are in favor of gun reform because of public safety and statistics but opposed to immigration reform because **** public safety and statistics. So if they are a hypocrite why aren't you?

Because when you do it, the two topics are different?

I'll anticipate your answer that you are not, yourself a hypocrite. So then presumably you hold different positions on the two issues because you've done the math, and guns have crossed some threshold of danger that immigrants haven't? So your immigration position isn't some moral high ground. We should allow immigrants because they aren't dangerous enough yet.

I'll admit I'm putting a lot of words in your mouth and maybe theres a third option I'm not anticipating.

Just learned they are planning on resettling a couple dozen Syrian refugee families in my town. Am I supposed to crap my pants now? Gonna need some advice on how I am supposed to FREAK THE **** OUT about humanitarianism the presents absolutely zero threat and is probably a long-term net positive for my city. TIA!

What immigration reform is required? You guys currently have clear/strict immigration policies in place. It's not like you're just opening up your borders and letting anyone in. That's your gun purchasing policy, not your immigration policy.

So to state my stance, I think your immigration policies that are currently in place are totally fine and safe.

I don't know you said it was.

The pascals wager plays in his thread because of the principle of dminishing marginal returns. The $ the person loses by not ruining the environment is less important than the $ costs in clearing it up and whatever other costs are incurrred.

If you are going to claim the maths matters know what the maths is.

Do you think the fact that someone was about to die from a terrorist attack matters to that someone if they were a victim of deadly diarrhea?

You can literally substitute "Muslims" with any group (and "Islamic" with the appropriate adjective) and the statement would be true.

Hatred and xenophobia (the result of electing Trump) would increase the likelihood of terrorism. Take, for example, France.

Also, Obama hasn't ended the practice of murdering, terrorizing and torturing Muslims, nor of supporting Israel's illegal invasion of Palestine, so one wouldn't expect US-targeted terrorism to have decreased.

People who care about other people? And an overlapping set of people who care about American ideals?

Would you be asking that question if these were Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust? "I know they're fleeing some horrific **** and all, but how would letting them in benefit me?"

Granted, population control is something we should be talking about. Imo the solution isn't to restrict refugees, nor to poison our water, but to restrict the number of births.

I thought the Autobahn was statistically safer than most (if not all) speed-limited US highways? In part because they enforce and respect the "keep right, pass left" rule.

It's entirely because of that.

US getting overrun with refugee strawmen.

Are you alluding to my Holocaust refugee analogy? Vhawk said allowing refugees provides about as small a benefit as eating skittles. Someone replied that it's a bigger benefit. Vhawk replied, "For who?"

How is his question, "For who" any different than asking, "How does it directly benefit me, myself and I?"

EDIT -- I should also acknowledge that Vhawk himself isn't being selfish, because he said he is against banning refugees.

My point is, the lack of direct material benefits to people who already live here does not mean the benefit would be skittle-sized.

Conceded, but you're still not answering my question.

Why are you so afraid?!

Your television falling on you, an elevator malfunction and f***ing lightning are more likely to kill you than some religious zealot serving the caliphate.

I mean, you drive right? You are thousands upon thousands of times more likely to die in your car. How much more afraid are you of people in head scarves?

Do you see how irrational your extreme fear is? What do you think the cause is?