The Adams Summary
I described our exchange as I saw it, Scott Adams describes it his way:
Which is to say that Muslim immigration should be banned on the basis of the tangible risk it poses to the lives of Americans.
My summary of that exchange is that I asked you to defend your position and you succeeded. That is rare.I concur with his conclusion. We place different values, as measured in American lives, on the principle of religious freedom in the USA. But because he correctly recognizes that there is no way to keep the risk below the price he is willing to pay - which, contra my assumption, turned out to be his actual position on the matter - he ended up on the same place that I did.
I'm not suggesting the U.S. should allow Muslims to immigrate at this point in history. I'm just trying to find a market price at which folks would agree the risk is worth the benefit, as they see it. You see no benefit in religious tolerance (in this specific context) and I judge that to be a credible and consistent point of view.
Rare.
To be clear, I see no way we could keep the risk to 100 terror deaths per year with continued Muslim immigration. So my price can't be met.
We end up at the same place. I priced it differently but neither of us wanted the deal.
Which is to say that Muslim immigration should be banned on the basis of the tangible risk it poses to the lives of Americans.
Labels: Clash of Civilizations, debate
63 Comments:
December 10, 2015 2:17 AM
༽ ༽ ༼ ༼
║◕ ◕ ║
║ノ___║ノ彡sɯᴉlsnɯ
Well, Mr. Adams gets a nod of respect for his principled approach. Too many of the people I see posting on Facebook lately are pricing their virtue signaling above the lives of their fellow citizens.
A lot of people just don't know, but they know something isn't right. Its all, Sammir seems like a solid guy, he can't be one of those extremist. So I have had some success with Scott Adams risk-assessment approach. Something like
"There are 2.5 million of them in the US; they are 15-20% of the prison population, just on the terror side of things they have killed 5000 Americans, done billions of property damage including to our military headquarters, and were used by the government to create the TSA costing us another $10 billion a year and massively inconveniencing travel within the US. With all that suffering we probably should be able to pin point the tangible advantage of inviting them in, right?"
But then there are all those "There are five lights" guys including Zuckerberg who I am presuming is promising to censor FB from hate facts to prevent feelbadz. Good to see him playing the dad card five minutes after she was born. Of course his family won't ever have to step foot into a government run disability center so what does he care.
I was thinking simply do unto all Muslims as all Saudi Arabians do unto all Christians. Quid pro quo. How many Christian Cathedrals in Arabia. There should be exactly the same number of Mosques in North America/ Europe/ Australia/ New Zealand/ Great Britaian. Quid pro quo. The centre of Islam displays it's pluralism to the entire world - let us at the very least, reflect their exact levels of tolerance.
two. Put personal guaranteeship on every advocate of open borders. For every rape murder honour killing genital mutilation enslavement committed by an immigrant within two generations exact proportionate responsibility from the open borders advocates. Let them be guarantors in reverse lottery.
Yes this is pie in the sky, but its opening gambit negotiations in all rational responses.
Finally. Only a mad man tries to entertain the legitimacy of two mutually exclusive claims. All SJW are at least that insane.
Well hell, since 9/11 we have already averaged about 200+ per year so I guess the whole 100 per year WAG is moot.
Then it occurs to me that there were a sizable number of other attacks/assassinations in the US by muslims prior to 9/11.
And before someone asks ... here's a quick reference - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americanattacks.htm
Wow. Respect for Mr Adams for being able to separate the reality of the situation from what he wishes it to be.
Honest question. If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?
In the SJW lexicon Christians are already banned so there's nothing to lose not dealing with SJW claims. ex. The Armenian genocide doesn't exist. There are no Christian refugees from Syria. Piss Christ Versus a Mohammad cartoon.
The refugee program is 100 percent skewed to Muslim. Christians are already banned from public debate. Chaplains who can't mention Jesus but have to accommodate for other faiths. etc etc etc.
"If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?"
There are times to enact laws and times to repeal them my friend. The beautiful thing about this is Trump may not be able to ban all Muslims from entering but he can revoke visa status from every Muslim country in one day without the approval of Congress. Thereby, effectively halting all Muslim immigration.
see: Iranian Visa Executive Order and Chinese Immigration Law
See also: Immigration Act of 1907
The bottom line is this, the constitution clearly does not apply to foreigners. Therefore, discrimination based on sex, race, religion, etc is not applicable.
He's an honest man.
@VFM 360
There is no way. All human systems are capable of abuse. What we need is not the perfect solution, which is only achievable via apocalypse, but the optimal achievable solution.
IMO, the right framework is to percieve religious freedom as it was concieved: a peace treaty between Catholics and Protestants, later expanded to include other religions.
Religions that denounce that peace, such as Islam or Dawkinsanity,
are not entitled to or permitted the benefits of the treaty, nor are the signatories obligated to honor any term of the treaty towards the non-signatories.
... which is a nice thought, but optimal acheivable at the moment seems to be pick a religion and exclude.
to put this in the French perspective, one death is too many.
I submit the one death was Aurelie Chatelain. Because of that one single woman. And only one example is all it takes. Europe should demosque until hell freezes over or Hillsong leads worship at a Christian Cathedral built next to the Kaaba.
Amen
@9: SciVo:
OT: For those of you who can, please come up with an anti-assassination equivalent of "no more free Wacos." Please.
Why?
Please reply here where your request is on topic.
no more free Wacos.
the next time you see a false flag don't call for bigger government or another war in the middle east. Orthogonal to the direction they're herding you is the way to go.
on a roll.
it doesn't matter who funded and supplied ISIS. It's irrelevant who is trying to use it. Who calls it their pawn. Who thinks they are unseen players in the shadows.
ISIS was born in Islam. Islam can collectively pay the toll for the judgement coming ISIS' way. The romans were good at collective punishment. Decimation is simply one of the mathematical models.
Aurelie Chatelain wasn't protected where she grew up a daughter of France. Here death is Europe's disgrace.
Who's the new crazy?
Ron: "Given that I and all my relatives will be of those subject to your suggestions..."
No you won't. And stop inverting reality and making out that you, collectively, are the victims.
In Muslim mass immigration into historically white, Christian countries, whites racially and Christians religiously are the victims.
FTR last night on Comcast's narrative page (news) they lead with a headline about voters agreeing with Trump.
"If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?"
I think the best way to ensure this is to keep the US predominantly Christian in the present. A few less Muslims won't hurt that cause.
I wish the anti-semites would stop chasing rabbits, but that is what they do chase rabbits.
Simply and plainly put, anti-white rhetoric and group harm aimed at whites (genocide by law) is not going to be popular going forward. It might have some allure with the mentally/emotionally damaged or the low IQ no hopers but those types make good slaves or fertilizer, who cares.
This isn't about the Jews. Seriously, I don't know who is more annoying, the self-obsessed Jews or the anti-Semites.
Neither of you can ever talk about anything else. You're off-topic.
No one expects the Jewish Disquisition!
@VD
Please excuse me, no harm was meant. And I only just now saw your statement regarding your wishes to not continue this topic.
Honest question. If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?
1. We're not banning "religions". We're banning religions that teach their practitioners to kill us.
2. As far as Christians are concerned, "In the world you will have tribulation". We are to accept persecution as part of the package. Not provoke it. Not court it. But if we are persecuted for the sake of Christ, that's cause for rejoicing and reward in heaven. So no worries there.
So, short answer: I don't think we can "ensure" anything, but who can?
@4 Will Best:
But then there are all those "There are five lights" guys including Zuckerberg who I am presuming is promising to censor FB from hate facts to prevent feelbadz.
Saw that, he should go up to a bunch of those moslims he loves so much and share the luv!
Perhaps if he were living where he belongs, in his homeland, he would actually understand the truth about them.
Please excuse me, no harm was meant. And I only just now saw your statement regarding your wishes to not continue this topic.
It's fine. But as we say in #GamerGate, "Don't touch the poop!" Some people like Jews. Others don't. The fact that the latter sort exist is neither new nor requires addressing every single time.
It is a false delima. The first amendment doesn't say all religions are equal and they have never been treated as equal simply on the basis that they claim to be religions.
I suspected this was what Adams was going for, but it also can serve as the pseudoconservative argument for "safe, legal and rare" which is never any of the three.
Zero is the only answer that actually achieves the shared objective, even if you don't persuade idiotboomer with it.
And Whitey McWhite, if you pull that sort of crap again, you'll lose the entire comment for the sake of an off-topic parenthetical. Don't try to "sneak things in". All that will happen is that you'll get spammed.
@ 8. VFM 360
Honest question. If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?
Well, the Christians who understood the Protestant foundations of the Nation wanted to limit the importing of Roman Catholics.
But the real reason for banning the immigration of certain religions might be the case of the Eskimaux from eastern Europe
Dwelling on the Adams question a bit more...my initial reaction was that the test was wrong--the question should have been how many of *your* immediate friends and family would you accept in the name of religious tolerance. Asking how many stranger deaths would you accept is akin to trying to ascertain the market price of a government cheese by looking at ghetto rat consumption rates.
But this is wrong, and indicative of how deeply the poz runs even in my own thoughts. Each is a piece of the main, a part of the whole and all that.
In summary: for all the witnesses professional and casual.
You don't do deals with Islam, nor any devil, personal or corporate.
The British Navy and US Marines largely exist simply to kill Muslims.
Let's not mince words.
Killers who don't discriminate can't be individually identified. There isn't time nor resources. There is an economics to saving lives.
Economics demands a policy. You know what to do. Demosque, the sooner, the safer.
"which, contra my assumption, turned out to be his actual position on the matter"
I have been following his blog ever since he started the 'Trump Persuasion Series.' Half of what he says over there is just trolling for reactions. And it usually works.
What bothers me is that he is willing to sell a hundred lives for muslim inclusion. I don't care if, in the end, he agreed. He is so out of step that he needs to be beaten and hung like any other who would sell someone else's life for his feelings of superiority. Fuck him and the muslims he rode in on. And screw you for letting him get away with it.
You misspelled 'everyone'.
You misspelled 'everyone'.
It is a false delima. The first amendment doesn't say all religions are equal and they have never been treated as equal simply on the basis that they claim to be religions.
But what if, through ubiquitous gun carry, we could limit the Muslim terrorist toll to under 100, would he accept the package?
@11 "The bottom line is this, the constitution clearly does not apply to foreigners."
While technically correct because the Constitution applies to the government, this is a very dangerous position to take -- you see, if you say that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-citizens then you are saying (e.g.) that the Sixth amendment does not guarantee a trial in open court with the defendant aware of the charges and able to defend himself when it comes to dealing with non-citizens.
This is made even more stark when you take a look at the list of things that citizenship may be lost over -- especially item (7), which says, in part:
committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States
So, by that law we see a direct opposition to what our Declaration of Independence says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So then we see that the powers that be could try to claim the above law to strip the aforementioned right of the citizens to [re-]institute government and to deny them fair and just hearings.
8- If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?
You mean like Christian Russians after USSR fell instead of jews(perceived victims who had 8 oligarchs snatch up most of Russia's wealth), or Christian Somalis today instead of moslems being brought over via taxpayer dollars by the Refugee Resettlement people? For all the moslems we have taken in at taxpayer expense from the nation that Doctor's Without Borders respects the borders of after fleeing we could have taken in ever Christian so there would be no religious minority.
OT: For those of you who can, please come up with an anti-assassination equivalent of "no more free Wacos." Please.
You have to speak in a language that leftists can under stand. Do you want to be like the gay guy on a Train in DC on July 4? A high on PCP nigger stole his phone, he told him to give it back only to be stabbed to death with a full train watching. Kevin Sutherland's last words where "NOT ALL BLACKS ARE LIKE THAT".
Do you think flower power will work against people that committed the Holodomor? The important part of "no more free wacos" is taking care of the family members if you cant get the targets. Leftists will not give up their plans for your wallet or guns without significant incentive. The illegal alien who sued the white men who saved his life when he drove into water made every 1st responder reevaluate if they would help a brown person when not on duty, but there is no credible threat to leftists when leftists misbehave.
To be honest, I thought the whole 1000 victims thing was satire at first.
There might come a day (after more jihad attacks on home soil) where sane people demand that Islam lose its very definition as a "religion" and be re-classified, properly, as a "death cult" which presents clear and present danger to the state.
Germany already bans Scientology for a failure to meet a proper definition of religion, no reason why Islam can't be redefined.
No more worries or fretting over religious tolerance if it's not a religion in the first place.
@34. ncartist
Under the Constitution of 1787, the 1st threat of secession was over the Louisiana Purchase. The 3rd threat of secession was over the annexation of Texas.
In both secession threats, one the arguments was over the introduction of French and Spanish Catholics (Louisiana territory) and Texians/Mexicans (Texas) into the union. The opponents were Federalists from the northeast.
"If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?"
Category error. There is no way to create a system that can't be gamed or turned against you. I would argue that we have already hit that point anyway- the potential risk can't be that the US law might be turned against Christians because that is the actual fact on the ground today.
Sevron: "There is no way to create a system that can't be gamed or turned against you."
Right.
But you can go a long way in the right direction by barring people with grievances against you from the top positions of cultural and political influence. I mean, someone has to be doing the gaming or the turning, and if they are outside the cultural and political elite rather than inside it, that helps a lot.
For example: the rules regarding the English monarch and Catholicism. From the point of view of maintaining the independence of the Church of England, not having the monarch's spouse scheming non-stop to see that it's reabsorbed into the Catholic Church is a good idea.
Sevron: "I would argue that we have already hit that point anyway- the potential risk can't be that the US law might be turned against Christians because that is the actual fact on the ground today."
Right.
Obviously the same factors that led to that situation are likely to make it even worse in future, Muslims or no Muslims.
That's why, if you're trying to answer the question, "If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?" "don't import an additional hostile religious / racial / cultural population and elevate them too to positions of great power" is correct, but cannot honestly be a complete answer.
If you want to give an honest, accurate and complete answer, you have to add, "the solution is more democracy," or something like that.
Honest to God, Whitey, I can't make heads or tails out of your response to me. I don't believe I was discourteous, nor was my comment some kind of tricksy twist. You've invented about half of the conversation in your head- for example, I would never say that the solution to any problem was more democracy.
@48 "Category error. There is no way to create a system that can't be gamed or turned against you."
No, it's really not a category error. Here's why: a just law applies [very nearly] to everyone. So, "thou shalt not murder" is not going to be turned against you, and cannot be [w/o perversion of justice], unless you actually go and murder someone... in which case you ought to have the law against you.
Or, as Paul said in 1 Tim:
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
Because there's no way they can define murder so that crushing a baby's skull in the womb and vacuuming out the pieces doesn't count. What world are you living in?
Clean up @54. Repeat we have off topic jew ranting @54.
Bring a mop.
I think I'll start keeping tabs on certain commenters about what percentage of comments that don't involve rants about Jews they can manage to make. Joshua Sinistar is the first item.
oh like a spread sheet... just put a "pet topic" column in it... and an "not-pet-topic" column... every comment goes in one or the other.
20 bucks says more than 80% of Chris Mallory's comments revolve around deporting everyone but his family.
Monomanias have always been treated the same.
@53 "What world are you living in?"
A fallen one.
@53 "Because there's no way they can define murder so that crushing a baby's skull in the womb and vacuuming out the pieces doesn't count."
You should also note how the "constitutional right to privacy" that they found from the "penumbras and emanations" are not applied equally -- to wit: the Afordable Care Act exposes the selfsame medical records, which they claim are protected by constitutional guarantees, to the very government which if forbidden in the case of abortions.
So you can clearly see the contradiction here: either there is a constitutional right to privacy which voids the Affordable Care Act (as the Constitution has not been amended) or else the Affordable Care Act's validity repudiates Roe v. Wade's validity.
Scott Adams also deserves credit for stating the issue as an obvious cost-benefit analysis, which no politician other than Trump has been willing to do. This makes Adams intellectually honest, even if he had come to a different conclusion. None of the current politicians in D.C. has any sense of intellectual honesty at all.
But in future also, never repeat that nonsense about liking people to say plainly, directly and courteously what they think. I believe in that; you don't.
You're spammed. Don't try to comment here again.
Let me spell this out for all the drooling Me White Me Superior idiots out there.
1. I don't permit ANY monomanias here. If you are going to work your one and only topic into everything, you will be spammed. I don't care if your One True Issue is Jews, Keynesian economics, ancient Greece, evolution, gay sex, or the Founding Fathers. Those are all obsessions of previously banned monomaniacs.
2. The fact that I like something does not mean that I want it all the time. I like chocolate. The fact that I did not want it for dinner tonight does not mean I don't like chocolate, or that I am lying when I say I like chocolate. I should not have to point this out to anyone over the age of seven.
3. Do not even think of telling me what to do on my own blog. That is the best and most certain way to get yourself instantly spammed. If I want your advice, I will ask for it. If I have not asked for your advice, do not offer it.
Flooding the US with hundreds of thousands of 3rd world Muslims who want to kill us, rape children and repress freedom is not "religious tolerance". It is insanity.
Around the time of September 11th I once said to a coworker that, absent the prospect of nuclear terrorism, I could live with one 9/11 every ten years. Or roughly 300 deaths a year.
But that was in the context of having a war in the middle east. If you could cut that out with the low low price of not having them here at all, it's no contest.
I've been using Adams' method of analysis for decades. It's a tool for discriminating trains from non-trains.
When I say "Do I like X at least 1/30th as much as I like automobiles" and "~30K Americans die in automobile crashes each year" I am not *advocating for* the the death of 1000 Americans. And neither is he.
Let's see. Let X = civilian strong encryption. Yep. It's worth it.
Let X = Peyote church. Harder, but fuck, OK.
Let X = Islam. NFW.
Don't get triggered, ever, people. It's a weakness. You can be lead around by your rage if you leave the buttons hanging out.
Post a Comment
Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.