There are like 400 million people in the United States. How many casualties on average due to Islamic terrosim? Even taking 9-11 into account over a large sample size the number is going to be minuscule and it would probably need to increase tremendously to be an actual rational concern relative to a lot of other concerns.

For example, how many people in the US die to alcohol or tobacco related deaths compared to Islamic terrorism? I am sure the discrepancy is staggering, but for psychological reasons the concern over alcohol consumption is magnitudes of order less.

I think you've misunderstood the point, which is not that it's impossible for terrorist activity to increase, but that even in the worst case the scale of increase is so small that it's enormously outweighed by the benefits.

I said "worst case" but I also think taking the claim that terrorism will increase for granted is being far too generous to your argument, which is entirely unsupported by evidence. Instead, it relies on a very superficial deductive logic, abstracted away from the realities of how immigration works, e.g. in that immigrants are self-selecting and not a random sample from some other population, or in terms of the natural impediments to migration over long distances due to costs, evidence from historical immigration and assimilation, and so on.

But really you should buy and read the book. It would be more fun than talking to me, I promise.

Irrational rambling is what this is. Muslims only make up 1.1% of the general population of the U.S. Also, roughly 28% of that 1.1% are American Muslims.

From 1975 through 2017 there were 192 foreign-born terrorists who planned, attempted, or carried out attacks on U.S. soil. 65 percent were Islamists, 18 percent were foreign nationalists, 6 percent were right-wingers, 6 percent were non-islamic religious terrorists, 3 percent were left-wingers.

The point is simple, based upon mathematical probability, if you don't properly vet human beings from certain countries and just allow anyone into the country, terrorism will technically/likely increase. Of course size matters when it comes to probability, regardless, my point still stands.

You guys ever hear the one about the homeopathic patient who forgot to take his medicine?

Based upon mathematical probability if we all stayed inside when it rained less people would die due to being hit by lightning every year.

I still wouldn't recommend it.

I think most people can accept that more immigrants from Muslim countries will result in more deaths due to Islamic terrorism. But most people would also recognize from a rational, practical utility perspective when you look at the actual numbers we are talking about this isn't a rational reason to substantially influence immigration policy.

But if you are a populist demagogue that manipulates peoples irrational fears towards your own ends, discussing such topics can be extremely beneficial.

He died of an overdose.

What does this literally have to do with anything? I never claimed that people would be dying left and right from terrorism. My point was simple, open borders would increase the probability of terrorism occurring in the U.S. I know this is the politics forum and it is filled with losing poker players that don't understand how mathematics/probability works. If the U.S. implemented open borders tomorrow, would ISIS/ISIS sympathizers be more inclined/more likely to enter the U.S.? If your answer is yes, would these individuals probably plan a multitude of terrorist attacks if they got into the U.S.?

The answer to both of those questions could be yes and it still not have even the slightest impact on whether or not open borders is a good idea or not. Kelhus's point is that you're focusing on one potential negative impact (getting hit by lightning) that has such a miniscule effect that it is essentially irrelevant in the larger scheme of things (leaving the house in the rain).

Someone tell this guy that American born rightwing terrorists are the greatest threat with a far larger body count.

When did I refute this? Actually, I already admitted that currently white males are committing the majority of terrorism in the united states.

Also, white males outnumber Muslims 31/1 in the united states, once again, not very good at math.

I thought it was a good joke.

I liked it.

Once again, the low IQ far leftist types turn this into a white male vs Muslim issue. Ideologically driven is proven once again. My claim was that open borders would increase the probability/occurrence of terrorism.

You want scary, look up the number of people that have a favorable opinion of Donald Trump. WAAF

Sure. Right wing terrorists will commit a lot more terrorist acts against those immigrants as the immigrants try to start businesses and build communities that give the US more cultural depth.

Blaming the (potential) victim is just lazy.

but why is a statement like that getting bashed into oblivion if he is saying complete open borders will cause some problems in the future??

far left are saying anyone can come in and arent even about any background checks afaik. nothigjn great in this country didnt happen from literally immigrants who made us as great of a nation as it is today. but democrats cant go into the pres race really believing to have complete open borders can they? hell 50% of democrats think we need to kjeep a close eye on things as well

The "too big too fail" problem isn't unique to the US, but also happens in social democracies.

My country had a major financial crisis in the 90s and had to bail out our banks. Banks are vital to secure flow of credit. Without flow of credit, business slowly grinds to halt and makes a crisis worse.

Of course at that time my government took the position that bailing out means it was owed, so it took more the form of a stake than a gift. Perhaps somewhat ironically the social democracy took the capitalist position, while the US took the non-capitalist position (it basically bought stuff it knew could not profit down the line).

Similarly, particular industries might require government intervention also in social democracies. Sure, government exists for the people, but an economy also relies on people having jobs and income. These are not always done on a "yield-basis" in terms of numbers on a spreadsheet. Securing stability is important, in economics often touted as just as important as direct access to resources.

Of course, if your economy mainly subsists on "too big too fail" businesses, you probably have a serious problem, the economical equivalent of only being able to grow one very specific type of crop. In this regard the US' steady increase of big entities that gobble up smaller corporations should be concerning.

Why do you lie tho?

Another good joke:

The NHS should embrace homeopathy by continually halving the funding for it until it cannot be detected.

It raises an important general issue for politics which is that it's rational to put a lot of focus on anything that causes a widespread concern whether that concern is rational or not. Or put another way, it's irrational to make political decisions that ignore a widespread irrational fear.

Somehow we have to find a way to make progress on tackling the irrational fear alongside pursuing the policies that would be best if everyone was more rational.

I always thought a lot of rightwing terrorists were sexually frustrated incels so I assumed they would have a low body count.

that was def a stretch.


would you be okay with open bordes but havng set locations/regions/cities where they could live/ do buisess in or is that not right