Non-IT News Thread
-
51 Arrested in Minneapolis Police Protest
-
Charlie Sheen confirms he is HIV positive
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34845630 -
Man at centre of Minneapolis race protests dies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34848250 -
Russia steps up attacks against IS with missile bombardment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34849063 -
Paris attacks: Heavy shooting heard in northern suburb
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34853657 -
Paris attacks: Police in deadly swoop on apartment in northern suburb
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34853657 -
Avista: Wind Storm Damage Has Caused 'Largest Crisis in 126 Years,' Power Utility Says
About 180,000 of the utility's customers in Eastern Washington, Idaho and Oregon lost power by the peak of Tuesday's storm. Avista said it would take at least three to five days to restore service.
-
@mlnews said:
US Cowers in Fear of ISIS and Caves to their Wishes of No Longer Taking Refugees
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34835353
More than a dozen US states do exactly what ISIS wants and refuse to take refugees as a response to the attacks in Paris. So sad that instead of standing up, the states give in so quickly.
If I'm not mistaken the states don't have the legal right to do this. This is a federal matter.
-
@coliver that is correct, the states are threatening to violate the sovereignty of the nation. The free movement of people around the nation with border control at the borders is a pretty fundamental federal governance. These states have declared that they have the right to decide anyone who can move through or settle in their territory. This means that they might declare you or I not allowed to go to those states simply because they no longer feel that US citizenship is enough.
-
I saw a good analogy on FB last night that, I think sums up the issue with the Refugees, especially since the majority of them are likely going to be Muslim...
Say I gave you a bowl of M & Ms and told you "These are for you, but there's about 10% of them that were dropped in poison"...
Would you still eat the bowl of M & Ms? The Analogy here is that not all Refugees are going to be extremists running around blowing people up. But there's still the minority that will. Is it fair to (knowingly or not) put our families in that position?
It would be much different if the American Public said "Yawl come on over"... and it not be something mandated by the federal government.
-
@dafyre said:
I saw a good analogy on FB last night that, I think sums up the issue with the Refugees, especially since the majority of them are likely going to be Muslim...
Say I gave you a bowl of M & Ms and told you "These are for you, but there's about 10% of them that were dropped in poison"...
That's a horrible analogy. It's nothing like that at all. It's more like we offer to a bowl of M&Ms and just like all food you ever eat, including the food you have already eaten and hasn't affected you yet, might contain poison somewhere. But if you don't eat this "No different than any other food" food, you know that OTHER people WILL BE poisoned.
Refugees are not a new, different or unique risk. We have far, far more risk already in our "stomachs." The M&Ms are risky, sure, but no moreso than any other food we eat. But if we stop eating, other people will get poisoned.
-
@dafyre said:
But there's still the minority that will.
Statistically that's not true. No refugees have ever done that in the US. Historically our screening process and refugee processes have kept us safe from refugee concerns like that. This argument, that some of a group ARE poison, would suggest that all gun owning Americans today be locked up or department immediately because we should "gag ourselves" knowing that a small percentage of them will go around shooting up schools and churches, right? So if we are to throw out the innocent with the tainted, why do it only to imaginary threats and not to very established and known ones?
-
It also assumes that the M&Ms are only risky when eaten, but we believe that to not be true. Providing good jobs and good educations and good opportunities to populations reduces extremism over time. And extremists are more dangerous when external than internal statistically.
So by not eating the M&Ms you are increasing the risk overall over time. Taking on more risk to avoid risk, a bad risk mitigation maneuver.
-
@dafyre said:
I saw a good analogy on FB last night that, I think sums up the issue with the Refugees, especially since the majority of them are likely going to be Muslim...
Say I gave you a bowl of M & Ms and told you "These are for you, but there's about 10% of them that were dropped in poison"...
Would you still eat the bowl of M & Ms? The Analogy here is that not all Refugees are going to be extremists running around blowing people up. But there's still the minority that will. Is it fair to (knowingly or not) put our families in that position?
It would be much different if the American Public said "Yawl come on over"... and it not be something mandated by the federal government.
I don't agree at all. The Paris attacks weren't done by refugees they were done by French citizens or people who were already in the country on a visa. There was one refugee involved from what I have been reading, and they weren't even there from the recent conflict. The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by people who were here on work or student visas.
-
@coliver said:
The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by people who were here on work or student visas.
We should arrest all workers and students then!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by people who were here on work or student visas.
We should arrest all workers and students then!
More people have died by US citizens accidentally or purposefully shooting each other then have ever been killed in a extremist terrorist attack. So by this logic we should lock up everyone with a gun right?
Edit: @scottalanmiller beat me too it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
But there's still the minority that will.
Statistically that's not true. No refugees have ever done that in the US. Historically our screening process and refugee processes have kept us safe from refugee concerns like that. This argument, that some of a group ARE poison, would suggest that all gun owning Americans today be locked up or department immediately because we should "gag ourselves" knowing that a small percentage of them will go around shooting up schools and churches, right? So if we are to throw out the innocent with the tainted, why do it only to imaginary threats and not to very established and known ones?
...and right there, you just turned liberalism back on itself. One point you missed is that by and large, gun-related crimes are committed by illegal gun-possessors. The analogy would apply more to illegal aliens than to refugees, in that sense.
-
A good example of how this would logically work is France. France's response was to take more refugees. They aren't afraid of refugees, they want to help them and not support the extremists. Remember that the goal of the extremists, or one goal, is to make you fear untainted M&Ms. They make you think that 10% have been poisoned where there isn't the slightest reason to believe so. And then they use the M&Ms you don't eat against you in other ways. So by following the desires of the people trying to hurt you, you don't get to enjoy delicious M&Ms today AND have a bigger risk of being poisoned tomorrow.
-
@art_of_shred said:
...and right there, you just turned liberalism back on itself. One point you missed is that by and large, gun-related crimes are committed by illegal gun-possessors. The analogy would apply more to illegal aliens than to refugees, in that sense.
No, that would be unrelated here. MOST terrorist attacks are by outsiders, yet we are only talking about the ones perpetrated by refugees. There isn't anything liberal here in any way, logic is not unique to liberals. Just because it is a rational point doesn't keep conservatives from being able to use it to. It's just about safety and stats.
The point is not who "commits the most crimes" or else we'd excuse refugees on that fact alone. So the fact that MOST gun crimes are by illegal gun owners is misdirection. It is the number of crimes committed by legal gun owners that is in question.
Refugees commit almost no major crimes, yet we fear them and want to expel them based on perceived risk. How is that different than wanting to expel gun owners based on a more statistically supported, perceived risk?
-
I think the bigger question is who's going to the SuperBowl...
AM-I-Right?!
