9 Horrifying Outcomes Of Donald Trump's Muslim Ban

You assume that this statement applies to all Muslims. Please refer to the statement that you quoted for your answer.

 

The correct interpretation of all religions is against violence. Yet most of them have used their religion to start a war.

 

That was a disgusting example of journalistic ineptitude (and outright lies), but there are clearly many Muslims who are intelligent, peaceful, and can contribute positively to society: Indonesians, Bangladeshis, Indians, Pakistanis, etc.

Heck, just take the top 2% of graduates from those countries.

 

Oh the horror!

 

I'm not assuming any damn thing I am asking you a simple question, yes or no. do we extend religious rights to those who do human sacrifice? Please note only one man (the priest) per hundred or so is actually killing anyone.

 

I don't know about that. Pakistanis have been raping white girls on a massive scale in Rotherham, England and elsewhere. And the politically correct local government turns a blind eye.

And it would be much better if these capable Muslims remained in their own countries and tried to civilize them, in any case.

 

At least those governments are protecting the rapists from being injured or inconvenienced with jail. Those who gang raped a woman for hours were given 4 to 6 months in juvenile detention, though as old as 18. This then given them bragging rights. If anyone criticizes that they are branded as bigots and threatened with prosecution as a hate crime.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump said he would allow exceptions.

 

No one should be able to use their religious beliefs as an excuse to commit an illegal act, such as murder. Their right to their religion should not extend to the "right" to break the law.

 

Excellent now if the stated goal of a religion is to force everyone else to adopt that religion or die or become second class citizens in their own country, then what? And again does it matter if only 1 in 100 are doing the actual killing?

 

Religions are abstract objects. I can't do anything to a religion -- I can't arrest one or put it on trial. People are concrete. If a person states that their goal is to force everyone to adopt their religion or die or become second class citizens, then that person has clearly indicated their intent to perform illegal activity. They should face the same legal consequences as I should face if I announced an intention to kill all of my neighbors.

 

Overreact much?

 

Nice dodge. Do you let everyone of a given religion into the country knowing full well that 1 in 100 of them are going to at some time start killing those who will not convert to their faith?

 

If basic realism is a "dodge," then there is something very wrong with the question you are asking in the first place. I answered your question: no individual that has expressed such murderous intent has the legal right to do so.

I'll stop you right now, because the answer is already no. You don't let everyone of a given religion into a country, period. You don't let all Christians into a country, you don't let all Buddhists into a country. Why? Because their religion should not be the only consideration, and a given religion should not be an automatic rubber stamp for entry any more than it should be a rubber stamp for refusal.

"Knowing full well"? I already know full well that your initial assumption is false, so why would I pretend to "know" that it is true? This is phobia, plain and simple.

If 1 in every 100 Muslims in this country (that comes out to roughly 27,770 people) "are going at some time" (let's be generous and say somewhere between today and the next 80 years -- 29,200 days ) "start killing those who will not convert to their faith" then we should expect to see roughly one such attacker per day in this country.

Your 1% figure can't survive rational scrutiny.

 

On

One would think that it is fairly obvious that I am not talking about the ones already here. And please the difference between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 is 9 people.

 

One would think that, if you were talking about their religion, then their country of origin would not matter. Are the Muslims who are already here not Muslims?

Yes . . . if the group that you are examining only consists of 1,000 people. The difference is 9 people . . . for each 1,000 people in question

If we are talking about 1,000 people, then the difference between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 is 9 people.
If we are talking about 10,000 people, then the difference between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 is 90 people.
If we are talking about 100,000 people, then the difference between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 is 900 people.
If we are talking about 1,000,000 people, then the difference between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 is 9,000 people.

What group of no more than 1,000 people are you talking about?

1 in 100 out of the 2,770,000 Muslims in this country would be 27,700 people. 1 in 1,000 would be 2,770 people. That's a difference of 24,930 people.

Based on my earlier math, if one in every 1,000 Muslims in the U.S. had the plans that you previously described, and planned on acting on them sometime between now and the next 100 years, then we should expect an attack every 10 days or so.

 

And why would you assume there's only one per attack?

 

Feel free to insert any reasonable number of average attackers per attack. Your estimation is still nowhere close to reality. 1% is, by any reasonable measure, an extreme overexaggeration. I was already extremely generous about the timeline, and even then it fell flat.

 

It will continue to get worse. It's just a matter of time. The question is how much of it we will willingly subject ourselves to before drastic measures are taken.

Don't forget to add in all of the plots and plans that have been taken down that we'll probably never know about. For every one that succeeds there's probably 100 being planned or already shut down.

Islam is dangerous, and that's really the bottom line.

 

Muslims have lived in this country for centuries. We have over 2.5 million here now. The fears are greatly over-exaggerated.

The question is whether we have the conviction to treat people as individuals rather than resorting to stereotypes based on extremely rare events.

100? Even assuming that you are correct, how should those 100 impact the way that we treat over 2.5 million people? This is like viewing all conservatives with suspicion based on abortion clinic bombers and the Unitarian church shooter.

The vast majority of Muslims are not dangerous. That is the bottom line.

 

We will see.

 

I have so many people telling me the same "We will see" about so many different groups that I can't justify panicking over all of them.

Liberals are trying planning a Marxist takeover of our country! Just wait and see!
Conservatives are trying to institute a Christian theocracy! Just wait and see!
Environmentalists are planning murderous, massive depopulation! Just wait and see!

American Muslims could continuing being as peaceful as they are now for the next century, and people would still be saying "We will see." If the facts change, then sure, we'll see. If the facts stay the way they are now, then my previous statements still stand.

- - - Updated - - -

I have so many people telling me the same "We will see" about so many different groups that I can't justify panicking over all of them.

Liberals are trying planning a Marxist takeover of our country! Just wait and see!
Conservatives are trying to institute a Christian theocracy! Just wait and see!
Environmentalists are planning murderous, massive depopulation! Just wait and see!

American Muslims could continuing being as peaceful as they are now for the next century, and people would still be saying "We will see." If the facts change, then sure, we'll see. If the facts stay the way they are now, then my previous statements still stand.

 

Sure you did.

Was Jesus innocent?


Did he die for your sins?



The entire edifice of Christianity is built on the foundation that everyone's ticket to heaven is written on the murder of an innocent person.



Sucks to have an entire world religion stereotyped and paraphrased by a person with an agenda doesn't it?

 

How do we know it's unreasonable? We aren't looking at one large scale attack here we are looking at death by a thousand cuts over a very prolonged period of time. Most of these guys are second and third generation Muslim Americans, mom and dad weren't particularly radical but suddenly junior is? What's up with that? Clearly not all Muslims are blood thirsty loons but why are some of them and how do you counteract the message of the blood thirsty loons? Is this something inherent in Islam or is there more to the story and if so what is the more and how do we counteract it. And until we have answers to these questions what should we do? Trumps answer is we leave them where they are to the extent we can until we have answers, which to me sounds like simple prudence. You sound to me like you just want to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

 

If 1% of the Muslims here were radical extremists, and if they are planning an attack some time between now and the next 100 years (again, a gigantic bone I'm throwing you guys that you won't even acknowledge), then we should expect an attack/attempted attack roughly once per day. Yes, that's assuming one attacker per attempted attack, but I've made the math pretty easy on you guys. If the average group of attackers were as high as 10 people, that's roughly one attack attempt every 10 days. We aren't seeing that either. 1% is an incredible overexaggeration.

There are demographics responsible for far deeper cuts over shorter periods of time, but no one is going around pretending that they are some gigantic existential threat to our nation.

What's up with that is that you've just made an observation that could literally apply to anyone. We've had right wingers engage in terrorist attacks in this country, and maybe your Republican neighbor won't be so radical, but what his son!?!?!?!

Clearly the vast majority of the Muslims living here and moving here are not.

Great question, and an important reason why we need to embrace those Muslims who abhor violence and who can do a better job counteracting the message on a religious front than non-Muslims can.

There is obviously more to the story, otherwise something "inherent in Islam" would have an influence over more than just a fraction of a percent of those who practice Islam in our country.

All great questions.

Take reasonable steps against significant threats.

No, Trump's answer is to try to take advantage of scared voters with his usual "tough talk." The only actual plan he has introduced has been, "Just ask them if they are Muslim." His "plan" assumes that terrorists would be willing to kill us, but not lie to us -- if that assumption is false, and it is, then the plan is completely useless. Calling it "imprudent" would be a serious understatement.

Treating the threat in proportion to its realistic danger is not "pretending that it doesn't exist."

 

You seem to be alluding to the notion that you have a good handle on the "realistic danger" that exists from Radical Islamists. Out of curiosity, how do YOU (personally) quantify the "realistic danger" that exists ? Do you look at history? Do you look at potential? Is 9/11 the worst possible outcome in your assessment of realistic danger, or could it be worse than 9/11 ?