Tuesday, December 08, 2015

How many dead Americans are you willing to pay?

In order to permit Muslims to live in the West? Scott Adams calls out the virtue-signalers:
I propose that instead of calling fellow citizens racists or idiots we do a deeper dive into the risks and put a price tag on our preference for religious intolerance. If the risk of future terror attacks is tiny, most of us would prefer maintaining our respect for religious differences.

But if the risk is more than tiny, can you put a price on your love of religious tolerance? In other words, how many dead Americans are you willing to accept? I’ll go first.

Personally, I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country. My calculation assumes we are better off accepting some degree of tragedy in the name of freedom. That is often the case with freedom.

If you believe there is no risk from allowing Muslim immigration to continue as is, please explain that thinking in the comments. I have not seen that argument yet.

And if you believe there is some risk of a Muslim terrorist slipping through our current system of screening, what level of American deaths do you consider an acceptable tradeoff?

And keep in mind that you are not offering to die for freedom, since your personal odds of dying in a terror attack are negligible. What you are offering is a higher risk that other people will die so you can live in a country with uncontested religious freedom.
My answer is straightforward: Zero. We don't have uncontested religious freedom; we already have people refusing to let Christians on sports teams freely pray. That being the case, we Christians have absolutely no duty to abide any religion or religious practice of which we don't approve.

As The Duck observed on Twitter: "If you told American colonists they had to allow mosques because religious diversity they would have laughed, then tarred & feathered you."



Anonymous Anonymous December 08, 2015 3:31 PM  

That people claim to not understand the difference between religion and race is something that will always...not baffle me, but make me shake my head.

Blogger Super Snake (VFM #239) December 08, 2015 3:33 PM  

1000 dead?

About 3000 died on 9/11 alone. Do those deaths produce an overflow into the next few decades?

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 08, 2015 3:36 PM  

Shove this in the Cucks' faces.

Israeli commandos save musloid terrorists

Our boys are over there fighting....and Israel is providing aid and succor to the people who are killing them. It's time to pack it up and come home. Leave the fucked-up Semites to their bullshit games.

Anonymous Wyrd December 08, 2015 3:36 PM  

Personally, I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans...

But how many trains are fine in that calculation?

Blogger John Cunningham December 08, 2015 3:37 PM  

The commies know the difference between race and religion very well; but as SJWs they always lie. Remember, inc a choad always a choad. VFM 424

Blogger Tom K. December 08, 2015 3:43 PM  

There is always a tradeoff between risk/safety. And our minds are constantly calculating that measure of danger we are willing to risk and live within. It's called "risk homeostasis".

With any calculation, hoeever, you must acknowledge the probability of the danger based on its lethality. For example, most people will never agree to handle venomous snakes, whereas a snake handler does it every day. The snake handler is willing to assume the risk and does. However, he asks no one ELSE to assume that risk.

The U.S. government has NO RIGHT to assume a risk in the place of the people without giving the people a say in how that risk shall be apportioned. I may have NO PROBLEM putting Syrian refugees Michael Moore's house provided they are vetted ONLY by DHS. The more the merrier. But I digress.

Every state has a 10th Amendment right to refuse these potentially venomous reptiles entry into their state. Any of them.

Blogger James Dixon December 08, 2015 3:46 PM  

> How many dead Americans are you willing to pay?

But, but,... If it saves just one life....

Isn't that the perennial liberal refrain?

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau December 08, 2015 3:47 PM  

Just look at how left wing churches are allowed to endorse Democrats from the pulpit with no threat to their tax eempt status but let a traditional values church just put out a sample ballot and the IRS comes down on them.

Blogger Salt December 08, 2015 3:49 PM  

In that same light, we have no duty, except out of self-preservation as they have guns&badges, to abide by any law we do not approve of. At east since 1865.

Blogger Tom K. December 08, 2015 3:49 PM  

On another note, I am reminded of the Bob Heinlein book, "Starship Troopers" and a fact about the bugs that was left out of the movie, to its detriment.

In the novel, Heinlein points out that in all the terrifying swarming of the bugs, one about 1 in 100 of the bugs was a SOLDIER. A fighter. All the other bugs were NEVER a threat and COULDN'T be a threat as they were merely drones. Yet they served the very important function of providing the soldiers with a place to HIDE until they were close enough to STRIKE!

The good news for the troopers was their Rules of Engagement were to KILL 'EM ALL AND LET ALLAH SORT 'EM OUT!

We need to do the same. The "moderates" are not non-combatants. They are COVER.

Anonymous joe doakes December 08, 2015 3:50 PM  

Scott's number seems low. If you consider ISIS killings to be mere crime instead of acts of war (as Liberals assert), then you should be willing to accept the same number of ISIS killings as killings by any other group of murderers. The identity or motivation of the person who murders you shouldn't matter, right? But these are new killings in addition to the killings so they don't replace the present 15,000 murders per year, they'd be in addition to our homegrown killers' work. Setting an artificially low cap on immigrant killings is racist.

Blogger Sevron December 08, 2015 3:50 PM  

Agree with 0. I look at the country like a company. If we're going to take in a new hire, they need to bring something that we cannot get from within the organization. We already have plenty of uneducated deadbeats on welfare, so why bring in any more?

Blogger Tom K. December 08, 2015 3:50 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Miguel D'Anconia December 08, 2015 3:51 PM  

I would agree with Vox, I am unwilling to lose my life in the name of Muslim tolerance. I would ask Scott Adams if he is such a big fan of muslim tolerance, when is he moving to Dearborn, MI to live amongst them and experience the vibrancy?

Blogger Thomas Davidsmeier December 08, 2015 3:52 PM  

Wow. Just. Wow.

100 Americans a year for ten years straight to allow NONCITIZENs into the country. What right do noncitizens have to enter a foreign country? Why does Scott Adams want to allow 100 Americans a year to die? Just so he can say he lives in a "free" society?

Chaos =! Freedom

Blogger slarrow December 08, 2015 3:53 PM  

I had just finished reading that over on the Dilbert blog. Adams' whole series on Trump the Persuader is worth an afternoon.

The 1,000 figure is also an interesting move. It's designed to trip the people who are horrified that Trump would keep all Muslims out into being horrified that Adams would allow as many as 1000 murdered Americans (hey, it's only 100 per year, right?) But by stating that horror, they concede some ground to Trump, and then their heads explode because they can't handle rational thought.

Blogger Jourdan December 08, 2015 3:55 PM  

The problem with this sort of analysis is that many mundane and necessary items come with a given number of deaths, including bicycles, automobiles and restaurant food. No one will argue with a straight face that the value of having restaurants is worth, say, 100 dead people a year, because that sounds callous. But the facts speak for themselves: we accept a given number of deaths for many things, most obviously the freedom the automobile provides.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 December 08, 2015 3:58 PM  

There is no such thing as religious freedom. Do we allow Satanists to perform human sacrifices (yes there are such people out there)?

There was a practitioner of Santeria who was caught recently with human body parts. Do we allow him (or her) to continue to operate in the name of religious freedom?

Finally, Muslims have made it abundantly clear that we are at war with them, whether we know it or not. So should we let them in the gates?

Any libertarian or conservative calling for religious freedom these days is a cuckterian or cuckservative, pure and simple.

Blogger Unknown December 08, 2015 4:00 PM  

I am willing to accept zero casualties for the unnecessary presence of mohammedans in my country. They don't belong here, and any price for their presence is too high.

Allowing mohammedans into your country is like allowing cobras into your bed.

Trunp is the only candidate who understands that. The other candidates want to see you and your family murdered by the mohammedans they insist on importing at your expense.

Anonymous D Meister December 08, 2015 4:02 PM  

There is no benefit to America to allow any Muslims immigration. Muslims are low IQ people with a propensity to violence and they do not possess any skills that we need.

Blogger darkdoc December 08, 2015 4:02 PM  

He argues to let the most dictatorial, authoritarian, totalitarian system on earth, whose penalties tend to be death, slavery, or rape, come to the US, kill 100 people a year, all in the name of freedom. This is terminal stupidity.

Blogger pyrrhus December 08, 2015 4:04 PM  

Negative 1.5 million muslims...

Blogger pyrrhus December 08, 2015 4:04 PM  

@20 Exactly.

Blogger ottobego December 08, 2015 4:08 PM  

Somewhere between 711 and 1492 on the Iberian peninsula, Islam gave the world a preview of what can happen. If you are still on the sidelines after reading "Cuckservatives", maybe try reviewing a bit of history will help.
There's some very troubling background, when you start digging, about the parts of society which assisted with the invasion (Sephardi, reaped financial gains but later shown the door ), or those who rapidly became converts - I'm thinking about a resurgence of Black Islam on the short term. Also troubling given the attention span of those who feed at the SWF trough, who seem unable to realize what an intergenerational war will look like.

Anonymous Sam the Man December 08, 2015 4:10 PM  

I would make a more humanitarian argument on why limiting the ingress of certain folks who have a philosophy antithetical to western civilization is moral: It will results in 1)less internal conflict and less international wars. Not only harm to us, but less harm to other societies.

As an example of the first (less internal conflict) consider the following differences between western civilization and Sharia/Islamic law:

We like dogs, they think they are dirty animals
We like scantily clad young women (eye candy) they think it is a red flag of temptation.
We like pork, they think it is unclean and a sin to eat
We think female circumcision is wrong, they think it good
We think married below the age of 17 or 18 is wrong, they think 9 is the lowest age for marriage
We find modesty dress laws for women somewhat offensive (except fatties) they think they are correct and proper and can be enforced by local communities.
We do not believe in killing open homos, they believe in killing them.
We believe that the individual can make choices about religion, at least 1/2 of Muslims think apostasy deserves death.

Those beliefs are sufficiently at odds that there really is no halfway compromise that will work: if you let them in, in any significant numbers you are asking for a house divided. That means serious civil conflict and eventual civil war.

In the second case, international war: if you let in folks with such a different world view they will not become Americans or even westerners. The will always hold some kind of secret regard for a foreign land and be willing to bend the common will to serve that foreign interest. examples:

1) the many Jews that seem to think Israel's well-being is more important than the US.

2) The interest in UKs well being by the English favoring/speaking population of the US in 1916/1917. Had we stated out of WWI a negotiated peace most likely would have been the outcome and WWII, the cold war and many other conflicts of the 20th century avoided. Certainly England did not really benefit, in the long term from the US intervention, indeed the lost a lot more treasure because of it. (the 1917 bloodbath could have been avoided, as well as WWII and Korea)

So one could argue that limiting immigration for really foreign populations is the kindest thing to everyone, including the populations being considered.

Blogger Murray December 08, 2015 4:11 PM  

@15 Agreed. I don't think Adams would really be happy to allow 100/year to be killed by Mahommedans, but by throwing the number out there, he's forcing them out of their comfort zone of vaporous abstractions into the cold shower of reality. I'll have to check out some of the responses.

Blogger Phillip George December 08, 2015 4:12 PM  

in cost benefit analysis, what's the benefit of Islam? An: Nil. Hence any cost is unacceptably high.

Blogger KCFleming December 08, 2015 4:16 PM  

Current US law allows such restrictions.

U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182
8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

(3) Security and related grounds
(A) In general Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—
(i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii) any other unlawful activity, or
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is inadmissible.
(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In generalAny alien who—
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party
(i) In general
Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

Blogger Salt December 08, 2015 4:17 PM  

Vox is right, the correct answer is zero. But not solely because of any religious intolerance to Islam. Islam is at war with the west. Many have stated as much. When the US was at war with Germany and Japan, how many German and Japanese immigrants did we allow in?

Blogger Murray December 08, 2015 4:22 PM  

...aaannnd, of course, no-one over at Adam's blog wants to answer the question. Shocking.

Anonymous Anonymous December 08, 2015 4:25 PM  

Let me give you the typical SJW response:

But those people are fleeing from war. The bad people are only a tiny minority and besides that, we are responsible for their suffering. There might be a few deaths from those wicked terrorist but you will safe million lives. We are morally obliged to help.

My answer: Don't make other people's problems my own.

Blogger CM December 08, 2015 4:26 PM  

From the link:
You can tolerate that situation for now because religious freedom is a basic American right. But Trump is calculating (correctly) that the public will move away from “do nothing” and toward “do something” every time there is another attack. And when the time comes to “do something” you will only know about the Trump plan.

I don't agree with this. Sure, at some point, Trump's plan is what comes to mind... but that point is now if his polling numbers are to be believed.

If Trump's idea is overruled and overruled again, then that something looks more like The Holocaust... either them or us depending on how long we persist in our immunity to risk.

Blogger Krul December 08, 2015 4:29 PM  

"Personally, I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country."

Adams is conflating a couple of things, here. Refusing to allow Muslim non-citizens into the country is not an abridgment of their religious freedom. As non-citizens, they have no such freedom to begin with. The bill of rights of the constitution of the United States certainly doesn't apply to them.

Now making Islam illegal for US citizens, on the other hand, would abridge their freedom of religion.

Blogger Weouro December 08, 2015 4:29 PM  

Scott Adams also doesn't pay attention to the Muslims who aren't terrorists but who sympathize with terrorists. And the Muslims who sympathize with terrorist-sympathizers. Terrorists, terrorist-sympathizers, and terrorist-sympathizer sympathizers comprise like 99% of Muslims. It's why the Midddle East is what it is.

Anonymous Anonymous December 08, 2015 4:31 PM  

They have high birthrates. Think of demographic replacement.

Blogger S1AL December 08, 2015 4:31 PM  

There's a chance we see the end of the first amendment in the next decade. I expect that we see the end of the 14th, instead.

Blogger intuitivereason December 08, 2015 4:31 PM  

Always remember when reading Scott's work that he does it 'for effect' much as VD does. Different effect of course, but different audience too.

Putting the 1000 out there as an unreasonably large number pins every SJW into a two way bind as they seek holiness and ingrouping. Can't go less as that is less holy than Scott. Can't go higher because that will risk ostracism.

Anonymous dB December 08, 2015 4:31 PM  

As long as the people that die are members of Adam's family them lets do it.

Anonymous Anonymous December 08, 2015 4:35 PM  

And that's one reason why the military advances in Syria will have no results.
Our leaders have learned nothing from Afghanistan and Irak.

Anonymous paradox December 08, 2015 4:35 PM  

"If you told American colonists they had to allow mosques because religious diversity they would have laughed, then tarred & feathered you."

Oh I need to tweet this to my local Clear Channel cuckertarian talk show. He's currently ranting that the Founders were for religious freedom.

Anonymous Keep Smiling December 08, 2015 4:35 PM  

Let me see if I have this right. Trump says hold on muslims entering the country, and the SJWs shriek, put ashes on their heads and rend their clothes. Barry says no Christians can come in and .... crickets.

Anonymous Anonymous December 08, 2015 4:37 PM  

I don't understand the problem. ISIS just needs to open or take over abortion clinics and they can kill one in four American children and even get federal funding. One in three African Americans and extend the "black genocide" or Maafa21 (see the video).

The price of "choice" is 57 million so far.

Meanwhile, in the I like Eich, outfoxed themselves department:

Blogger Salt December 08, 2015 4:38 PM  

Now making Islam illegal for US citizens, on the other hand, would abridge their freedom of religion

Only if done under that guise. Islam is many things. One being a method of government, incompatible with US Law. So, ban Sharia and all its precepts, like wearing the Burka etc. Muslim prayer is also Sharia compliant. It too falls under the ban.

Anonymous Crank December 08, 2015 4:44 PM  

My number is basically zero, because even if nobody dies over 10 years, a dramatic increase in muslims will be very bad for the country - witness Europe even without terror attacks. Also, Islam is not a religion - it is a theological system that is inextricably intertwined with a doctrine of oppressive governance and perpetual conquest and subjugation. You don't get the theology without the rest. And no collection of muslims who claim to reject the Sharia and jihad, etc. can ensure that their children and grandchildren won't embrace those things whole-heartedly.

Blogger Cail Corishev December 08, 2015 4:49 PM  

Yes, the correct number is zero. We may not be able to achieve zero, but we have no reason to accept a higher number. If we expel all Muslims, and a couple still manage to sneak in and kill some people, at least we got as close as we could.

Blogger Alexander December 08, 2015 4:56 PM  

The correct number is zero.

Anonymous wick December 08, 2015 4:58 PM  

Mandatory muslim hiring quotas for NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, LAT, Apple, Yahoo, Google. Feel the risk.

Blogger Hammerli280 December 08, 2015 5:01 PM  

At least Scott Adams has put the question plainly.

And the answer is zero, of course. As Vox has been at pains to point out, a nation is a people and their culture, NOT the dirt. If you had a Star Trek transporter and used it to move all Russians to North America, and all Americans to Russia, we would NOT be Russians, nor they Americans.

Anonymous BigGaySteve December 08, 2015 5:04 PM  

How many dead Americans are you willing to pay?

The entire populations of NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, St Louis & Chicago sound like a fair trade, for the remote possibility of a Steve Jobs immigrating, but unfortunately evolution didn't stop at the neck. When calculating remember moslems will attack the weak gun controlled areas first.

My answer: Don't make other people's problems my own.

Its bad enough I have to pay for Latrina's 21 illegitimate crack babies.

He's currently ranting that the Founders were for religious freedom.

Remind him that the marines were created to deal with moslems.

Anonymous DNW December 08, 2015 5:06 PM  

"'How many dead Americans are you willing to pay?' ...

My answer is straightforward: Zero."

Technically American? You mean like Paul Krugman is an American, or Amanda Marcotte is an American, or Michael Moore is an "American" or the Clintons are American?

If so, then it kind of depends on whether you could limit it to a rat fight spectacle in a defined arena.

Totalitarian, solidarity pimping, anti-liberty political progressive "Americans"? Shrug.

Problem is: How do you let only the worthless parts of the house burn down?

Anonymous DNW December 08, 2015 5:07 PM  

Guess I was too slow with the send button. Someone beat me to the punch ... line.

Blogger FrankNorman December 08, 2015 5:10 PM  

People... the SJW's will just say you're a horrible bigot for implying that the Muslims will kill anyone at all. Then they'll start blathering on about something some white people did, sometime in history.
Appealing to facts doesn't work on people who will just ignore the facts.

Blogger Cail Corishev December 08, 2015 5:11 PM  

Always remember when reading Scott's work that he does it 'for effect' much as VD does.

When he called Obama a Master Wizard or whatever it was, the main effect was that I stopped reading.

Blogger Elocutioner #0226 December 08, 2015 5:11 PM  

@DNW I get where you're coming from, but hell no. Because the leftists never abide by any agreement that doesn't benefit them and we end up paying the price every single time. The 1965 immigration act had quotas that were promptly ignored. Not one inch, even if it's in writing.

Anonymous Godfrey December 08, 2015 5:16 PM  

Israel has a wall.

Anonymous Godfrey December 08, 2015 5:17 PM  

Israel has an immigration policy.

Blogger VD December 08, 2015 5:17 PM  

We are morally obliged to help.

Usually said by people who subscribe to no known moral system.

Blogger Krul December 08, 2015 5:19 PM  

@54 "Israel has a wall."

Is it fine?

Anonymous Godfrey December 08, 2015 5:21 PM  

Israel, Jordan $ Saudi Arabia aren't taking any refugees. Why not?

Anonymous Godfrey December 08, 2015 5:24 PM  

Fine? Yes, it's a fine looking wall. But is it a racist wall? Or is a wall only racist if built on the southern border of the US?

Anonymous DNW December 08, 2015 5:25 PM  

As The Duck observed on Twitter: "If you told American colonists they had to allow mosques because religious diversity they would have laughed, then tarred & feathered you."

"That standing armies are dangerous to the liberties of a people was proved in my last
number—If it was necessary,

Some of the advocates for this new system controvert this sentiment, as they do almost
every other that has been maintained by the best writers on free government. ...

A writer, in favor of this system, treats this objection as a ridiculous one. He supposes it
would be as proper to provide against the introduction of Turkish janizaries, or against
making the Alcoran a rule of faith."

Well that is how it once looked. Before "The One" and his crease sniffing worshipers arrived on the scene.

Blogger Rusty Fife December 08, 2015 5:28 PM  

@58 Godfrey

Saudi and Jordan use the excuse that they didn't ratify the UN treaty:

However, Israel doesn't have that excuse.

Anonymous johnc December 08, 2015 5:34 PM  

Holy mackerel at some point the West is going to have to come to grips with this Enlightenment-era error we call "freedom of religion". It was nothing more than a pragmatic attempt to curb greater evils -- that was its only end goal. It is not a virtue on its own nor strictly speaking a true human right. When it fails to serve this temporal end (curbing some evil, like religious conflict) and results in its own evils, then it can and should be restrained.

Second, there is no "human right" to religious freedom. This is where people are getting lost. If any philosophy (no matter how moronic, such as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or how evil, such as satanism or Islam) gets somehow categorized as a "religion", people immediately think it becomes sacrosanct and above any interference and should be afforded all the same protections as true religion.

The truth is that all human rights come from God, and therefore the only rights we have are those that He authors. He does not grant a right for people to hold error -- including "religious" error -- any more than He grants a right to pornography or adultery or whatever other sin. He may permit those things out of respect for our free will, but that is quite different than a right.

The West has totally lost its mind. "Error has no rights" (Pius IX) and so tolerance of error only makes sense when attempting to restrain it causes greater evils. Trump's plea for common sense immigration control produces no evils at all.

Anonymous DNW December 08, 2015 5:34 PM  

VD December 08, 2015 5:17 PM

" 'We are morally obliged to help.'

Usually said by people who subscribe to no known moral system. "

If you could get the person asserting that to actually argue the point, you would be performing a public service of inestimable value.

I have tried and failed to do so numerous times. Not only do they (if progressives) usually subscribe to no known moral system apart from one that reduces to a statement of their own stipulatively arbitrary preferences, they usually are overt nominalists to boot; whose denial of the existence of objective categories and natural kinds, makes any attempt at categorical assertions, arguments, or imperatives, absurd on their own suppositional framework.

Blogger Maple Curtain December 08, 2015 5:35 PM  

What's Mohammedeanism got to do with religion anyway?

It's a political project - conquest and totalitarianism - masquerading as religion.

Anonymous Godfrey December 08, 2015 5:42 PM  


And said by people in a financial class unaffected by the consequences. Words are cheap, especially for the wealthy.

Anonymous DNW December 08, 2015 5:44 PM  

By the way for the historians among you. I linked to one thing, a Federalist essay mocking the notion of an explicit constitutional provision regarding standing armies as being as unnecessary as one prohibiting the establishment of the Mohammedan religion, and then quoted from Anti-Federalist Brutus, I think it was, responding to the Federalist's attempted reductio style parallel.

Blogger haus frau December 08, 2015 5:46 PM  

So we are supposed to give up our guns because of Sandy Hook but this guy is happy to allow 4 Sandy Hook Shooting or one moderate size Beslan massacre every year for the blessings of unskilled, foreigners? Who of his family is he willing to see raped and stabbed? But to him these things aren't really solid possibilities because of the magic of statistics. No one person is likely to be violently sacrificed at any given time but some will and that's ok because they are strangers to him.

Anonymous FrankNorman December 08, 2015 5:46 PM  

56. VD December 08, 2015 5:17 PM

We are morally obliged to help.

Usually said by people who subscribe to no known moral system.

And who won't themselves be doing anything to help. By "we" they mean other people.

Anonymous Steve Brown VFM#0273 December 08, 2015 5:57 PM  

Vox, correct Zero. My question to Scott Adams would be; at what level of dead Americans would he change his mind? Why? Public opinion? His wife dying?

Blogger Phillip George December 08, 2015 6:03 PM  

wealth is social capital. you fuck with that enough and it matters not what your bank accounts are. wealthy Frenchman lost their heads to the guillotine.

said, this before. the only thing wrong with islam is that it is untrue. It doesn't matter if it is caftan tie died flower power hippy free love sufi Islam that wouldn't crush a buddist snail type. All islam is blasphemy. All islam is Anti Christ. All Islam a lie. musselmen of alcoran are welcome to leave. We can send them away with a blessing of sorts. Go and enjoy your Shia-sunni-wahhabi brotherhood religion of peace. Just like you have at the Iraq-Iran border so often.

Blogger Karl December 08, 2015 6:05 PM  

I think the number discussion is useful because it forces the debate to a point where you must discuss future attacks, which is something that the anti-Trump people do not want at all.

Better to pretend that any future attacks are unknowable or not likely.

Year to year the variance of attacks is likely to be much higher than people think. You may go 8 years with no attacks, then one year you have an attack that kills 1,000. It's not 100 - 100 - 100

I mean, it's ridiculous to pretend that you, on your lonesome, have the capability to forge a metaphysical bargain with the universe to control terrorist attacks to an acceptable level. So why bother declaring what is acceptable. Who is the guarantor that you turn to if there are more deaths than acceptable?

Scott Addams doesn't strike me as someone who in this case is seriously proposing a ridiculous idea.

I've read through the latest draft of Taleb's new book skin in the game. What he has completed has been a good read so far, and I found one quote today relevant to this discussion. Nothing about the incidence of previous terror attacks is predictive of future attacks.

Taleb quote:

The probability that the number of people who drown in their bathtub in the United States doubles next year –assuming no changes in population or bathtubs –is one per several trillions lifetimes of the universe. This cannot be said about the doubling of the number of people killed by terrorism next year. Your grandmother knows that. But a little bit of education is destructive.

Blogger KCFleming December 08, 2015 6:05 PM  

Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad

“According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.“

Blogger jamsco December 08, 2015 6:11 PM  

Vox, I feel it's my duty to say that this is a really good post.

Blogger Max December 08, 2015 7:11 PM  

Islam is a barbaric, heathenistic, backward religion of ignorant people who accept perversion. Their theology is as primitive and illogical as any unschooled savage in the darkest jungles of South America. For example their belief in 72 virgins. Where are these virgins going to come from? They cannot answer that question because it's a fantasy. It means their religious philosophy goes no deeper than sex. None of the women in Islam are virgin. They marry them off at a prepubescent age. They sodomize their female family members and claim that they are still virgin because they raped the other side. Any woman in the family is open season for any man. How sick is that?

They believe that the messiah has not been born yet but will be born from the ass of a man. How many of you know this? Probably none. They don't advertise it because it requires sodomy. They are all sodomites.

I haven't even mentioned the Honor killings of Sharia law. Or the fact that rape is a punishment for a rape victim.

Anonymous MK320 December 08, 2015 7:26 PM  

Well, Americans should be OK with the same level of killings done by illegal aliens. Estimates are 1 per day to somewhere around 12 per day.

Blogger BunE22 December 08, 2015 8:25 PM  


According to a German scholar of ancient launguages who studied the Qur'an it's not even virgins, it's grapes.

The Imams probably couldn't get men to die for jihad if the pay is grapes so they changed it to cherries.

I agree with the rest of you that say the answer is zero. No one has the right to decide that your (or my) son or daughter will be sacrificed. Because that's what it would be, a sacrifice on the altar of political correctness and diversity.

Blogger Antonio From Spain December 08, 2015 8:34 PM

Anonymous Ain December 08, 2015 8:42 PM  

There's calculations between freedom, risks and safety... And there's things that should never be.

Blogger Dorsal Spine December 08, 2015 8:45 PM  

I bet he would change his tune if he and his were in the first hundred to die. I's always easier when somebody else is doing the dying.

For me, wondering if the draft would end before I turned 18 served to drive that particular point home.

Blogger David Johnson December 08, 2015 8:51 PM
(A) IN GENERAL.-- Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in--
(i) any activity to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii) any other unlawful activity, or
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is excludable.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 08, 2015 9:04 PM  

I know a lot of people here regard me as a filthy moderate. And I don't resent it, because according to your terms, I am one, but according to mine, I'm not.

That said, I found Scott Adams arguments compelling, except for one detail: the idea that banning future Muslim immigrants infringes religious freedom. Because I don't see how this could be the case.

If we started banning *current* Muslims from attending their mosques, or demolishing those mosques, without actual charges of terrorism being at least filed against the mosque leaders, then that would be an infringement of religious freedom. But future Muslims are neither American, nor *here*. Therefore their religious faith is neither our problem nor our responsibility. We are not obligated to take the religious beliefs of a Saudi national into account when crafting our domestic laws, just as he is not obligated to take ours into account.

Anonymous Susan December 08, 2015 9:11 PM  

Yeah, typical craven cowardly liberal. Willing to offer up as payment, that which is not his to give.

Problem is, if he is thinking this way, you can be darn sure that there are a whole raft of liberals thinking the same thing on the QT.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 08, 2015 9:13 PM  


What are you talking about? We make the same judgment when we support gun rights. Supporting the RKBA means knowing that some people will die as a result of having it. You make the call that the right is worth the tragedy, and you stick with it.

I absolutely agree that the price we pay for the RKBA is worth it. But it is a price we pay.

Anonymous Sensei December 08, 2015 9:56 PM  

Adams is on your side, people. He says 1000 because it's a tactically useful number, but once people start thinking in those terms you've basically accepted the whole premise of limiting immigration and now are "just haggling about the price," as they say.

Blogger Rusty Fife December 08, 2015 9:57 PM  

@83 WKL

Not the same; murders gonna murder. However, God made man; Samuel Colt made them equal.

Even without the whole Government of the People argument, firearms give the innocent a fighting chance.

Blogger Rusty Fife December 08, 2015 10:04 PM  

@84 Sensei

Agreed WRT Adams. Also can't go an order of magnitude higher. Pearl Harbor was 2.5k and WTC was 3k; if he threw down 10k per decade, that's a PH or WTC every couple years.

Go an order of magnitude lower and we've already met our quota for the decade in the last few months.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar December 08, 2015 10:33 PM  

Isn't it just amazing how tolerant the Left or Lunatic Fringe is when religion is practiced by people who aren't White? You never see spaghetti strainers during Ramadan do you? Its almost as if all this hate for religion is a mask for their Generalized Anti-White Prejudice. In fact its EXACTLY LIKE THAT.
Dilbert needs to rethink his conclusions. Even his pointy haired boss knows that Captain Simian isn't counting any casualties by lying about it and saying its White racism and poverty causing these attacks. That's the Left summed up right there. Anything bad done by POS POC is always attributed falsely to White racism and poverty. This bipedal pollution needs to go.

Blogger SciVo December 08, 2015 10:49 PM  

@ Cail Corishev:

Did [your football team] ignore the strengths of [the last football team they defeated], or did it study them in order to maximize its odds of success?

Obama is a master rhetorician, and he will have the bully pulpit during the next election. However, his strengths are offset by his weaknesses, and it would behoove us to prepare linguistic kill shots for all of his DISQUALIFY!!! attempts.

Blogger CM December 08, 2015 10:49 PM  

“According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”

any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is excludable.

Banning all who agree with Sharia would be a good counter to whatever is offered after Trump's "Ban em all".

Although with this, we have pretty obvious evidence that Islam is more than religion, but a political machine as well (not news to anyone here, I know).

Blogger SciVo December 08, 2015 11:01 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Student in Blue December 08, 2015 11:07 PM  

They believe that the messiah has not been born yet but will be born from the ass of a man. How many of you know this? Probably none. They don't advertise it because it requires sodomy. They are all sodomites.

Where is this detailed at anyway? It would be useful dialectic.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 08, 2015 11:15 PM  


Actually it is the same, because people use firearms for a reason: they are effective weapons. A would-be killer with a rifle is better able to kill than one with a knife. The advantage of the RKBA is that the defenders are better able to defend; defending against a knife, with a knife, requires you to close the distance, whereas a rifle of your own does not.

Agreed, firearms are fantastic equalizers. And I'm not disputing the need for a free people to be armed; it's symbolic, ironically, of our acceptance of the government. Each day we choose not to rebel, given that we have the means for effective rebellion in hand, it proves that we have "consented to governance".

Anonymous redsash December 08, 2015 11:48 PM  

So, American libtards and cuckservatives don't want to ban Muslims, even if one out of twenty could be a terrorist and 15 out of 20 might want to live under sharia. Very well then. Move 150 million over here. Real estate prices will rise even though job hunting will be a hitch. Hopefully, all those anti WASP types will get their fill of Islam. It will be fun and games for all. Dodging falling gays from tall buildings. Collecting rings from the amputated hands of those Vanderbilt Belle Meade lot who had to much quiche and wine. Yes, fun times for all. Best of all, burkas on feminists because I do hate facial hair on women.

I'm bailing like VD. Hopefully, soon off to Russia for me. I've always wanted to garden that country's black earth. Who knows. Maybe my retirement money will go further and I can help counter those sanctions. There simply is not enough gray matter and real Christians left in America. I go to prepare a place for my children.

Blogger Samuel Nock December 08, 2015 11:48 PM  

Adam's follow-up tweeted that by letting them in we gain "respect for people of different religions".

Since when is letting someone into your house the only sign of respect?

Query for Adams: Do the Japanese and Koreans not "respect" other peoples?

And in any case, who says we have to respect them?

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 09, 2015 12:10 AM  

@89 we have pretty obvious evidence that Islam is more than religion, but a political machine as well

I repeat my prescription from another discussion:  all Muslims have implicitly sworn allegiance to the Caliph, and the Caliph is a foreign potentate.  Ergo, all Muslims have foresworn citizenship in the United States of America and may be freely deported.

Blogger Rusty Fife December 09, 2015 12:27 AM  

@92 WKL

Criminals spend an inordinate amount of time fighting compared to non-criminals. Their agrees ion and skill is decisive in these conditions.

They will murder regardless of available weapons using ambush, see Cain.

If the revolver hadn't been such a game changer, it wouldn't have earned the reputation it had.

In the old West, when rifles that killed buffalo at 1000yds were available, it was Colt's revolver that was credited with winning it.

Not all homicide is murder.

Blogger automatthew December 09, 2015 12:55 AM  

I know a lot of people here regard me as a filthy moderate. And I don't resent it, because according to your terms, I am one, but according to mine, I'm not.

We don't despise you as a moderate. We despise you as a posturing fool.

The good news is that fools can be reclaimed, whereas moderates have to have a Death Wish experience first (rape by Jeff Goldblum being sadly necessary).

Blogger Cail Corishev December 09, 2015 4:14 AM  

SciVo, if my football team loses because the other team gets a couple lucky interceptions off tipped balls and recovers a few of my team's fumbles, then no, I wouldn't want them to study the other team's strategy of tipped-ball catching and fumble recovery. I'd want them to study their own mistakes and fix them.

Obama's "strengths" were that he was a reasonably well-spoken black man (but not too black) at a time when that was what people wanted, that it was the Democrats' turn after a disastrous Republican presidency, and that his opponents were both cuckservative losers who could barely bring themselves to run against him for fear of being called racist.

I like Dilbert, and I've enjoyed some of Adams's books. I just can't take seriously a theory that involves Obama being a Master anything, other than maybe Master Navel-Gazer.

Anonymous joe doakes December 09, 2015 9:03 AM  

Okay, are we clear on the plan? Achmed goes in the East door shooting, I come in . . . wait, what? Where? Crap, some idiot in California just used up the last two killings in our quota. The mission is scrubbed.

Blogger Rez Zircon December 09, 2015 9:59 AM  

Scott Adams is asking the wrong question. The correct question is:

Are you willing to have YOUR family die horribly to promote religious "tolerance"? Are YOU willing to die horribly for it?

Ask that of the average non-SJW, and you'll get very different answers.

But SJWs are =always= willing to harm *other* people.

Blogger BrianE December 09, 2015 11:27 AM  

I think the wrong calculation is being used here. Yes, the chance of being killed in a Muslim terrorist attack is very small.
The more important calculation is whether Islam is compatible with US constitutional governance. It is not. We may not see stoning for adultery or homosexuality in the general population for some time, but we already see examples of honor killing here.
As a compassionate policy, we should allow asylum for Christian middle easterners facing persecution and death, and allow Muslims to sort out their Sunni-Shia/tribal conflicts themselves.

Anonymous Susan December 09, 2015 11:54 AM  


In no way is support of the 2nd Amendment the same as Adam's ridiculous statement. My right to a gun in no way means I am willing to offer up Thousands of lives of people I don't know in exchange for protection of a bloody death cult. Which also by the way is okay with kiddie fiddling.

Whereas Adams argument is he is willing to offer up the lives of MY kids and others to protect the so-called rights of the followers of a murderous death cult to come here and plan and plot their violence. Usually in an armory disguised as a mosque.

There is nothing honorably religious about muslims. They are soaked in the blood of innocent victims.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar December 09, 2015 3:06 PM  

It seems to be a singular opinion of leftists that they are always willing to make other people sacrifice things as long as they don't have to. I never considered Dilbert to be a Leftist myself. I remember a strip form years back where he was making fun of environmentalism by having the pointy haired boss purchase a massive SUV that ran on owls, but being he made a fortune writing this comic, I'd expect he lives a remarkably undiverse life in a gated community with the demographics of Mayberry from the Andy Griffith Show. I'm sure and would even bet my own money that if someone forced any of these supporters of divershitty to actually live next door to it, their support would magically disappear.

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 10, 2015 10:30 AM  

@75. Max

"Islam .... believe that the messiah has not been born yet but will be born from the ass of a man."

I have been aware of Islamic eschatology for a long time and this is the first time I hear this. I assume you are referring to the Mahdi. Do you have a source that you can share? I am unable to find anything relating to the, ahem, unusual birthing of the 12th Imam.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts