Non-IT News Thread
-
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?!
-
@DustinB3403 said:
I think the bigger question is who's going to the SuperBowl...
AM-I-Right?!
Via public transportation, no less. It was a friend of mine that spoke to the city and ran a campaign to get public transportation set up for the event.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
I think the bigger question is who's going to the SuperBowl...
AM-I-Right?!
Wooo Sportsball!
-
This whole "refugee" ball of wax is a slippery slope / hot potato. Of course, one wants to help refugees. Of course, America is a land of immigrants. On the other hand, we're up against an enemy today (Islamic extremism) that doesn't identify itself by standing and attacking. It hides and waits and then employs cowardly acts to attack its enemies. Obviously, the only way to completely stop some (you know they're in there, but you just can't prove it before it's too late) arsenic-laced m&m's from getting in the bowl is to stop eating m&m's. We don't want to do that, so therein lies the dilemma. You can have a valid opinion on either side of the issue, but no matter which side of the fence you're on, you know you're sacrificing something sacred to be there. Either you're a racist bigot for wanting to protect your country, or you're a lib-tard for being willing to throw security to the wind in the attempt to preserve freedom and equality.
Personally, I'm taking the stance that freedom and equality for Americans, while we're discussing American security, trumps the "freedom and equality" of the non-American whom we're looking at here. Sure, it's not "fair", but life seldom is. I know that liberals like "fair", but that doesn't even happen in fairy tales. It would be nice, but I'm not sacrificing security for the sake of "fair", and I'm going to be very unhappy when 1 random refugee blows something up and kills a bunch of American citizens; and I will be completely justified in my anger when it happens.
-
@coliver That's really funny, given your background.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@coliver That's really funny, given your background.
Yep, never was a sports fan... just don't enjoy watching it.
-
@art_of_shred said:
This whole "refugee" ball of wax is a slippery slope / hot potato. Of course, one wants to help refugees. Of course, America is a land of immigrants. On the other hand, we're up against an enemy today (Islamic extremism) that doesn't identify itself by standing and attacking. It hides and waits and then employs cowardly acts to attack its enemies. Obviously, the only way to completely stop some (you know they're in there, but you just can't prove it before it's too late) arsenic-laced m&m's from getting in the bowl is to stop eating m&m's. We don't want to do that, so therein lies the dilemma. You can have a valid opinion on either side of the issue, but no matter which side of the fence you're on, you know you're sacrificing something sacred to be there. Either you're a racist bigot for wanting to protect your country, or you're a lib-tard for being willing to throw security to the wind in the attempt to preserve freedom and equality.
That's where I don't agree, nor do any studies that I know. Yes, there is a risk to any immigrant OR existing American. Yes there is a risk to refugees. But that risk has, over time, proven to be incredible small.
What is left out are two big factors. One is that to call them M&Ms leads us to think of ourselves as humans needing to be protected from poison and refugees as disposable candy that we can ignore if we don't want to risk it. But that's not what it is. It is humans on both sides, humans whose lives are equal and who need protecting (unless you take the Christian hardline then the refugees being primarily non-Christian far more important to save because the chance to witness to them is critical.) But assuming equal value, it's the overall risk, not the risk only to one side, that has to be considered.
But even treating them as M&Ms, there is, it is generally accepted, far greater risk to not eating them than eating them. So if the goal is humanitarian, we take them. If the goal is risk mitigation, we take them. If the goal is to expose them to Christianity, we take them. Three agendas, who of them fully supported by conservatives, all point to taking them.
