If you can't be certain that a terrorist won't gain entry into the US, why in the hell would you let any in, until you could gain such certainty? Do you realize that roughly 75% of Muslims believe that homosexuality is wrong? Do you realize that 25% believe that terrorists attacks against innocent civilians can sometimes be justified?
Why can't I both try to love people and make sure that we're not allowing people in the country who would seek to do harm to others, and who I also love? I am tasked to love murderers in prison, but that doesn't mean that I'd want them to have unfettered access to my home and family. I don't see them as being mutually exclusive. There's a tipping point in each direction, and it's tough to sometimes perfectly balance it, but we should seek to strike it, where possible.
I just bring it up because I don't think you should act like he's some horrible bigot for saying muslims should be banned. I don't agree with that opinion myself, I just don't think you or me or anyone should act like we're above that opinion when we've posted similar in the past. How do you define love if it is not in action form?
A strawman is a type of logical fallacy. Not "off topic fallacy." But regardless, the discussion became assimilation in general when assimilation was mentioned. In my next post I'll demonstrate why Norris response wasn't a strawman, and was on topic.
In my best GahLee: Strawman! He was talking about GahLee's post, not the site in general, so it isn't part of the discussion. See. I just you'd you.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. That's the definition. Not the way you define it but you're no Noah Webster, so who cares if you're right.
Where did I call him a bigot, or even allude to it? Show me, in my post, please. He said we had to choose sides, and I chose mine. When he advocates for the exact same type of radical religious zealotry, and laced with the same undertones of violence, he becomes nothing more than the different side of the exact same coin. And each side is not only equally errant, but are each deserving of both correction and condemnation. I quoted him from his own sacred text, and little more. If he finds his beliefs to be at odds with that, perhaps it is his position which is wrong, and should be re-examined, and not me, for merely reminding him of it. Where have I suggested that love isn't actionable? In that post? Is my reminding him of the Bible, which he believes and follows, not love? Is it more loving to watch him cherry-pick and erroneously apply the Revelatory text, even at the direct bastardization of the Gospels, and Jesus himself? But if Jesus of Nazareth is no longer the standard, then I'd suggest you can each commiserate with the wise words of a dude named Nazareth, instead. [youtube]IJ7Myy7Hpxw[/youtube]
It isn't a misrepresentation. He asked a question, in order to draw a distinction. You are actually misrepresenting his position by erroneously claiming it is a strawman, and claiming it is a projection. Norris again follows up and says he is asking a question. You are questioned how that is a strawman, and when it, again, becomes obvious you don't understand the difference, multiple someones again have to point out that you don't understand what one is. You can define a thing all day long. That doesn't mean you understand what the thing is.
So, the bomber 22 year-old Salman Abedi, was a British citizen born in Manchester. Are we just going to shit on the Constitution and deport all Muslim citizens to prevent this type stuff? If so, we are no better than the Islamic theocracies of the world. On second thought, it might be a stroke of genius. If we destroy our own country by tearing up our Constitution, maybe they won't want to fight us anymore. Great plan....
It's tough isn't it? When the terrorism becomes domestic through immigration, it's nearly impossible to stop. How do you stop a man from walking down the street with a backpack of destruction and no regard for human life, not even his own?
Ultimately you cannot stop it. Not without turning the world into some Orwellian nightmare. People working alone or in small cells are nearly impossible to stop. Worked for the French Resistance, the IRA, and every other guerilla group you can think of. The only hope is, ironically enough, for the thing Trump was stumping for in Saudi Arabia to happen, and that is a change of Islam from within.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for moderate Muslims to rectify the issue. Honestly, it's not just on them. It can't be. This is a global issue. One with very little hope in my estimation.
Per usual, you avoid the topic and instead go out of your way to just attack and insult someone else.
He literally explained stated why Norris's comment wasn't a strawman. Your response is "you avoid the topic and instead go out of your way to just attack and insult someone else." Quality posting.
Is your shtick acting stupid and ignoring answers to your posts or is it all a giant troll job? Because, honestly, I don't know how else anybody is supposed to communicate with you other than through direct answers. If that's not doing the job, message boards and basic reading just aren't for you.
