Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[Delphic Oracle]

Certainly, if we vet a person and discover they feel like they should blow up a nightclub to protest America, that would be disqualifying. You would agree someone like that should not be allowed entry into the country?

My point was regarding the consequences of how our policies will make people feel. Immigration policy should not be based on how such policy will make people feel, it should be based on what's good for the country. Do you how hard it is for me, a non-rich person, to become a U.K. citizen? And North Korea doesn't want anything to do with me. Should I be mad about that?

Are the U.K. or North Korea engaged in a generations-long effort to dominate regional policy where you live? Are they backing a puppet dictator or abusive military in the multiple countries near where you live? Have they invaded your country or neighboring countries? Have they cooperated with corrupt heads of state in your part of the world up to and including drone and cruise missile strikes to remove the enemies of those corrupt leaders?

The immigration policy issue doesn't exist in a vacuum and "what's good for the country" is probably for us to present ourselves as being mildly aware of our historical behavior and how this policy might be feeding into the exact problem we claim it is a reaction to.

If the minority opinion is over 20%, and the opinion is, it's ok to blow people up to protect religious ideology X, yes we're going to factor that in to our immigration policies (or we should). This has nothing to do with "you people". If people from Poland felt this way, I wouldn't want them here.

I have no problem with a framework that seeks to prevent people from coming here who want to blow us up, we should factor in that this could happen from anywhere. Besides, if you want to argue in favor of prioritizing time and resources towards the biggest statistical threat, then we'll have to change the subject from immigration to domestic policy.

Can we stop pandering to Islamic people like they're knee-jerk knuckledragging morons? If country X doesn't want Americans, is that going to push you in some direction? Radicalize you? You talk about Muslims like they're two-year olds, ready to fly into a rage at the slightest provocation.

I said it feeds "increasing hostility and alienation." That does not imply I think anyone is a "knuckledragging moron," or a "two-year old." I would appreciate it if you would not exaggerate my position into absurdity.

So do a lot of things. I don't go through life tip-toeing around people for fear that some provocation will set them off.

Not asking you to. But if you know a specific attitude or action is likely to draw a negative response, you can't exactly feign ignorance for continuing to encounter said response.

In the end, people choose to hate, be pissed off, and be offended.

That's a great argument in favor of doing things that will predictably and reliably do so.

I mean I know poking that guy in the eye every time I see him pisses him off, but he's just choosing to be, so I see no reason to change my behavior at all!

We're under no obligation to allow anyone to come here.

That might be a relevant rebuttal in a conversation about whether to have any immigration at all. If we're going to have immigration, I'd prefer we do it on individual merit.

If someone doesn't like it, they can go to some other country.

"We don't want you here and aren't letting you in, if you don't like it, go someplace else!"

Uh???

 

[Craig B]

/end debate

Not at all. A line to be added

... I douse my lamp beside the bolted door.

 

[Fudbucker]

Are the U.K. or North Korea engaged in a generations-long effort to dominate regional policy where you live? Are they backing a puppet dictator or abusive military in the multiple countries near where you live? Have they invaded your country or neighboring countries? Have they cooperated with corrupt heads of state in your part of the world up to and including drone and cruise missile strikes to remove the enemies of those corrupt leaders?

The immigration policy issue doesn't exist in a vacuum and "what's good for the country" is probably for us to present ourselves as being mildly aware of our historical behavior and how this policy might be feeding into the exact problem we claim it is a reaction to.

That is a very good point. I was myopically viewing our policies in isolation, but as you say, they're all interconnected. Our policies regarding the ME are transparently self-serving, and we do have a lot of atoning to make up for. On that point, I think we should take in Syrian refugees and allow immigration from countries we have interfered with/economically exploited, which is practically speaking every country in the world. I still think we should be very careful about immigrants from countries whose belief systems are diametrically opposed to ours (e.g., women's rights, fundamentalism, terrorism, etc.)

I have no problem with a framework that seeks to prevent people from coming here who want to blow us up, we should factor in that this could happen from anywhere. Besides, if you want to argue in favor of prioritizing time and resources towards the biggest statistical threat, then we'll have to change the subject from immigration to domestic policy.

Certainly we can multitask. Terrorism has nothing on the tens of thousands dying every year from opiods/heroin. But we should be able to handle both.

I said it feeds "increasing hostility and alienation." That does not imply I think anyone is a "knuckledragging moron," or a "two-year old." I would appreciate it if you would not exaggerate my position into absurdity.

I was making a point. There is this view, esp. in liberal circles, that the slightest provocation (e.g., mentioning radical Islam) will cause millions of Muslims to join ISIS. It's a not very flattering stereotype and it feeds into the right-wing view of a war of civilizations (Islamic savages, vs civilized Europeans).

Not asking you to. But if you know a specific attitude or action is likely to draw a negative response, you can't exactly feign ignorance for continuing to encounter said response.

But you can't let others outrage dictate your actions. Charlie Hebdo had every right to satirize Islam.

That's a great argument in favor of doing things that will predictably and reliably do so.

I mean I know poking that guy in the eye every time I see him pisses him off, but he's just choosing to be, so I see no reason to change my behavior at all!

Which is why I brought up the distinction of harming vs failing to benefit. If I harm you, I should expect some blowback. If you and another person are begging and I give the other person money, you have no justification to be angry.

That might be a relevant rebuttal in a conversation about whether to have any immigration at all. If we're going to have immigration, I'd prefer we do it on individual merit.

Would you assign the same risk factor to every immigrant? For example, would a grandmother from Ukraine get the same going over as a thirty year old male from Egypt?

"We don't want you here and aren't letting you in, if you don't like it, go someplace else!"

Uh???

My point was, if a person is upset by a country's immigration policies, the solution is rather obvious: don't try to immigrate to that country.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

To clarify, I'm not against the idea of more rigorous screening policies. I object to double standards in screening policies. Besides, that's easily outflanked by radicalizing someone in a country we have a low risk policy towards. Like say, any number of western countries that are embracing more and more xenophobic attitudes against even their own natural-born citizens of certain ethnic or religious backgrounds.

The "extreme vetting" thing is a misnomer. We already have that, it's called a refugee visa. It features an 18-24 month wait while a dozen alphabet soup agencies set up camp in the applicant's colon and go through their life with a fine-toothed comb. Meanwhile, all the attacks against us from foreigners have entered the country on work, student, or tourist visas.

Businesses want cheap labor, schools like tuition payments, and the hospitality/entertainment/service industries like customers. They all have lobbyists.

Refugees don't have lobbyists.

 

[A'isha]

That is quite a different question, as you well know. I would answer "sometimes" to that one, because the end goal isn't specified. Do we bomb the civilians working at an armaments factory of the country we're at war with? Quite possibly. Do we bomb them to defend a religious ideology? Absolutely not.

Except that question wasn't about military actions against civilians. It was specifically about, as the text of the question explicitly says, "an individual person or a small group of persons" targeting civilians.

There was an entirely separate question in the survey covering the military targeting civilians.

 

[Fudbucker]

Except that question wasn't about military actions against civilians. It was specifically about, as the text of the question explicitly says, "an individual person or a small group of persons" targeting civilians.

There was an entirely separate question in the survey covering the military targeting civilians.

[qimg]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f16/aishap/njiym7x7nkuh2cnawawxka_zpskbkd5hjc.gif[/qimg][/URL]

Interesting. It doesn't seem to square with Pew's survey.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Anyone can draw a bar chart. What makes anyone think that the survey was credible? Polling has a lot of traps.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That is a very good point. I was myopically viewing our policies in isolation, but as you say, they're all interconnected. Our policies regarding the ME are transparently self-serving, and we do have a lot of atoning to make up for. On that point, I think we should take in Syrian refugees and allow immigration from countries we have interfered with/economically exploited, which is practically speaking every country in the world. I still think we should be very careful about immigrants from countries whose belief systems are diametrically opposed to ours (e.g., women's rights, fundamentalism, terrorism, etc.)

I think not supporting the leaders of those countries by selling them billions of dollars of arms. Especially given how often they are used against their own citizens or somehow find their way into the hands of violent militias 3 borders away.

Certainly we can multitask. Terrorism has nothing on the tens of thousands dying every year from opiods/heroin. But we should be able to handle both.

I was especially meaning the identifying and prevention of violent acts being performed by people who have lived here their entire lives. But yes, we can and should be able to address more than one problem at a time. The way we 'address' it should represent our values, however. One of those values I was taught was that you judge every individual on their own actions.

I was making a point. There is this view, esp. in liberal circles, that the slightest provocation (e.g., mentioning radical Islam) will cause millions of Muslims to join ISIS. It's a not very flattering stereotype and it feeds into the right-wing view of a war of civilizations (Islamic savages, vs civilized Europeans).

Well, that sounds silly, especially the "slightest provocation" part. What I do think is true is that every time someone proposes a policy that targets a particular group of people based on the actions of other members of that same group (a minority of them, at that), the scales tilt just a little more in that direction. It's 'another brick in the wall' so to speak.

But you can't let others outrage dictate your actions. Charlie Hebdo had every right to satirize Islam.

Yeah, nobody is immune from being ridiculed and the response to an offense (perceived, real, manufactured, whatever) should be proportional. But immigration policies aren't satire. Especially for refugees or people trying to find some way to escape repressive regimes, I can understand the existential threat they might feel is implied. So while I agree with your statement, it's a bit of a false equivalence.

Which is why I brought up the distinction of harming vs failing to benefit. If I harm you, I should expect some blowback.

Further on that same point, a person from a part of the world where life is fraught with danger probably sees a rejection of request for immigration or a lengthy delay as greatly increasing the potential of their being harmed. Not necessarily that the immigration policy directly harms them, but contributes to the likelihood. Since we see this 'slow down the immigration flow from that part of the world' attitude moving forward across most of the developed world, again we have the issue of a broad rejection of how seriously they feel we are taking their plight.

Basically it's not hard to see how one would conclude:

'man, it seems like all the good places to live where I might not have to look over my shoulder all day are telling me to sod off. Aren't these the same countries that make me feel like I have to look over my shoulder all day? Now that I think about it, my 2nd cousin who moved there 3 years ago has been telling me recently they feel like they have to look over their shoulders all day. Who the hell are these people to wag a finger in my face about behaving like a respectable person?'

If you and another person are begging and I give the other person money, you have no justification to be angry.

Capuchins reject unequal pay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

Two Capuchins have to complete the same task. If you give them both cucumbers, they are happy to do it. If you give one cucumbers and the other grapes, the one getting cucumbers doesn't like this arrangement.

We could probably go around for hours on whether this is 'justified.' That numerous species repeat this basic paradigm (humans included) is rather firmly established, though.

Would you assign the same risk factor to every immigrant? For example, would a grandmother from Ukraine get the same going over as a thirty year old male from Egypt?

Yes, for the simple reason that wherever the weak link in the chain is found is where our enemies are going to attack it.

My point was, if a person is upset by a country's immigration policies, the solution is rather obvious: don't try to immigrate to that country.

If all countries provided the same opportunities for prosperity, personal security, etc. that might be more 'obvious.'

I also think we can do some 'physician, heal thyself' thinking about this and maybe if we want to reduce immigration from a given part of the world, maybe we shouldn't contribute to making that part of the world such a miserable hell-hole to live in.

 

[Fudbucker]

I think not supporting the leaders of those countries by selling them billions of dollars of arms. Especially given how often they are used against their own citizens or somehow find their way into the hands of violent militias 3 borders away.



I was especially meaning the identifying and prevention of violent acts being performed by people who have lived here their entire lives. But yes, we can and should be able to address more than one problem at a time. The way we 'address' it should represent our values, however. One of those values I was taught was that you judge every individual on their own actions.



Well, that sounds silly, especially the "slightest provocation" part. What I do think is true is that every time someone proposes a policy that targets a particular group of people based on the actions of other members of that same group (a minority of them, at that), the scales tilt just a little more in that direction. It's 'another brick in the wall' so to speak.



Yeah, nobody is immune from being ridiculed and the response to an offense (perceived, real, manufactured, whatever) should be proportional. But immigration policies aren't satire. Especially for refugees or people trying to find some way to escape repressive regimes, I can understand the existential threat they might feel is implied. So while I agree with your statement, it's a bit of a false equivalence.



Further on that same point, a person from a part of the world where life is fraught with danger probably sees a rejection of request for immigration or a lengthy delay as greatly increasing the potential of their being harmed. Not necessarily that the immigration policy directly harms them, but contributes to the likelihood. Since we see this 'slow down the immigration flow from that part of the world' attitude moving forward across most of the developed world, again we have the issue of a broad rejection of how seriously they feel we are taking their plight.

Basically it's not hard to see how one would conclude:

'man, it seems like all the good places to live where I might not have to look over my shoulder all day are telling me to sod off. Aren't these the same countries that make me feel like I have to look over my shoulder all day? Now that I think about it, my 2nd cousin who moved there 3 years ago has been telling me recently they feel like they have to look over their shoulders all day. Who the hell are these people to wag a finger in my face about behaving like a respectable person?'



Capuchins reject unequal pay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

Two Capuchins have to complete the same task. If you give them both cucumbers, they are happy to do it. If you give one cucumbers and the other grapes, the one getting cucumbers doesn't like this arrangement.

We could probably go around for hours on whether this is 'justified.' That numerous species repeat this basic paradigm (humans included) is rather firmly established, though.



Yes, for the simple reason that wherever the weak link in the chain is found is where our enemies are going to attack it.



If all countries provided the same opportunities for prosperity, personal security, etc. that might be more 'obvious.'

I also think we can do some 'physician, heal thyself' thinking about this and maybe if we want to reduce immigration from a given part of the world, maybe we shouldn't contribute to making that part of the world such a miserable hell-hole to live in.

You make good points.

 

[A'isha]

Interesting. It doesn't seem to square with Pew's survey.

Different surveyed demographics...the one I cited was specifically a survey of Americans of various religious persuasions.

Anyone can draw a bar chart. What makes anyone think that the survey was credible? Polling has a lot of traps.

It's from Gallup. It's no more suspect than the Pew survey is.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Having made a lot of pie charts and bar charts in my day, and having been subjected to a lot of polls and questionairres, neither polling agency has much credibility with me.
I am sure that the bar charts presented give some people comfort.
If that bar chart helps you feel better about yourself, fine, but I suspect that its intent was something else.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Having made a lot of pie charts and bar charts in my day, and having been subjected to a lot of polls and questionairres, neither polling agency has much credibility with me.
I am sure that the bar charts presented give some people comfort.
If that bar chart helps you feel better about yourself, fine, but I suspect that its intent was something else.

Perhaps the intent was to counter a false narrative that Muslims are more prone to rationalize or justify the use of violence than other religions/belief systems?

 

[Giz]

Perhaps the intent was to counter a false narrative that Muslims are more prone to rationalize or justify the use of violence than other religions/belief systems?

Lucky we have a bar chart to correct for the empirical data coming out of Berlin, Nice, Paris etc.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Lucky we have a bar chart to correct for the empirical data coming out of Berlin, Nice, Paris etc.

I'm all for the use of empirical data, though it is important to not just list the specific metric of interest to you, but look at other similar metrics for a sense of scale and comparison. For that reason, I hope that's a really wide 'etc.' you were intending.

Not including drug cartel-related data, the comparisons of terrorism by region are telling. Europe struggling with a few hundred deaths per year (which I am not discounting the horror or tragedy of) is a blip on the radar. South Asia/Australasia has seen some of the fastest rises in terrorism incidents both in sheer numbers, but also in terms of outpacing the rise seen in other areas. Then we can compare to empirical data in other areas to perhaps prioritize our interests. Like non-terrorism related crimes involving firearms. How about non-violent threats like heart disease? How many news stories did you see this year about deaths from being struck by lightning? Why are things that represent less of a realistic chance of killing you or anyone you know being brought to your attention at a rate so out of proportion with the things that could credibly kill you (or even the incredible things that are still actually more likely)?

What impact on the decisions people make about how to respond to issues we face is this going to have?

If I post condolences for Paris, Nice, Brussels, and Berlin, lots of likes, lots of comments that echo sympathy from people who have the flag overlay. If I post condolences for Aleppo, I'm introduced to a bunch of 'friends of friends' commenters who express dismay at my dismay.

 

[Darat]

If your entire argument is that you think I'm unqualified to make that estimate then please explain who would be qualified.

While you're at it you should also explain what gives you the right to decide who can make such estimates and who can't. You know, pot and kettle thing?

McHrozni

Again I'll ask, why is it you that gets to set the appropriate level of protest?

 

[turingtest]

Again I'll ask, why is it you that gets to set the appropriate level of protest?

What, the meta-question didn't getcha? Pretty sure that was supposed to stop you in your tracks. Of course, then the obvious question would be what gives him the right to demand you explain what gives you the right to decide who can make such estimates and who can't. You know, pot and kettle and...uh...pot again, I guess... thing, you know?

 

[McHrozni]

Again I'll ask, why is it you that gets to set the appropriate level of protest?

For the fifth time, I'm not setting it, I'm estimating it. If you need an explanation about the difference between the two say so. If you are fully aware of the difference then until you acknowledge that I have no reason to indulge this fantasy of yours.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

For the fifth time, I'm not setting it, I'm estimating it. If you need an explanation about the difference between the two say so. If you are fully aware of the difference then until you acknowledge that I have no reason to indulge this fantasy of yours.

McHrozni

The question remains unanswered, why do you get to set the appropriate level of protest for at least a billion people?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Either that or drive a wedge between terrorists and the rest of Muslim community, and not a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims as they do know.

McHrozni

As they do?

My my Santa didnt bring you a mirror for xmas I assume?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

We're working hard to eradicate those wordwide. Further,efforts by zillions of nobodies can have little impact there. They might be better goals, but such an effort would be useless against them.

Care for another try?



Try reading my argument for a change and address that for a change.

McHrozni

We are not working hard enough to eradicate those things. Mobilising an unprecedented number of people would certainly have as much if not more impact than your idea that criminals can be protested out of their criminal behaviour.

If we are going to protest criminal behaviour though lets open it up to all murder and get everyone involved. By your logic a billion person protest could end crime by Thursday.