Muslim and Arab Killings in the US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm when the same criminal act or what western society sees as criminal happens almost everyday by refugees of certain countries then i guess it has nothing to do with faith or culture

It may or may not have something to do with their faith and/or culture. That alone is not enough evidence to determine either way. Trump says Mexicans are rapists. Mexicans are Catholics. So, do Mexicans rape because they are Catholic?

No, because Mexican rapists are not using Catholic teachings as an explanation. Muslim criminals use their religious text/teachings to justify their actions, opinions that are often supported by religious leaders. I know the Muslims you know don't do this, but a significant portion of Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries do believe this. Read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?_r=0

This is from NY Times, a well known liberal publication. Open your eyes Jeff. Muslims is not a homogeneous population, a significant portion of them believe in the absolute validity of their religion.

Anyone can take a text out context and use it to support anything. That can be done, and has been done, to the Bible as well.

No shock to me, but "It turns out many ISIS recruits don't know much about Islam." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/17/it-turns-out-many-isis-recruits-dont-know-much-about-islam/

Well, we are not discussing why they use religious text/teachings to justify their behavior, just that they do in fact use religious text/teachings to justify their behavior. Why they do this is a far more complicated discussion and probably for a different forum. Yes, this same type of behavior has been associated with the Christian Bible as well, but contemporary Christianity have abandoned those medieval views and teachings. Those that do host extremist views like the Westboro Baptist Church are shunned by all and are the punchline to jokes. The contrast should be pretty obvious to you.

Are you suggesting that "contemporary Muslims" don't shun the extremist views of the minority?

Do you not understand that you sound like a complete hypocrite with little understanding of the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. I am married to an Arab Muslim, and our young children - trilingual, US-born - have unmistakably Arab last names. For the first time in twenty years in this country, I am afraid for what future has in stock for my American, yes, American children. I worry about how this country will treat them. And a little bit of me is glad that we thought ahead to take out citizenships for them in our respective countries of birth. If things turn ugly, they will have options.

OP, what are your respective countries of birth?
Why?


Because I doubt that you would take your children back to countries both of you left.
We don't really want to, we are just putting some options in place. I don't want my son bullied at school or excluded from jobs in the past because of his last name. He is starting kinder this fall and I'm dreading the day he comes back crying that someone called him a terrorist at the playground. Maybe children of people who post here. I'm contemplating teaching him to respond with "asshole", just for the hell of it.

You are not going to leave this country because your child was bullied because of his last name. If you go back to either your country or your husband's country, you know your life will be much worse and your children will be subject to much worse.

That really depends, doesn't it. The educated global class doesn't really have countries of their own any longer. The home is wherever the job is.

But I love how you respond with "this is as good as it gets for ya" instead of "sorry it's possible your child will be bullied because of his last name." Great job belittling what kids go through.

Well, in all fairness, the OP brought up the threat to leave this country, implying that it's can be so bad here that they'll go somewhere else better - why else would you leave if not to go somewhere better. The PP merely pointed out how laughable this notion is, because even though the US is not perfect, it's the best available. Immigration vs emigration for the US is 10 to 1, I'd call that a solid vote for our way of life being superior.

And yes, "as good as it gets" is a valid consideration. We all strive to do better, but expecting perfection is irrational and will only drive you into madness after repeatedly failing to attain something that's just beyond your reach.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Again I think it really depends on what you consider anti-Muslim or anti-Arab prejudice. For example, people from Brazil have a higher rate of Zika virus infection than people from Canada, for example. If for the purpose of controlling Zika retransmission we exercised more scrutiny of Brazilians for entry into the United States, or those people who have recently traveled to and from Brazil, would you consider that anti-Brazil prejudice? To me, anti-Muslim or anti-Arab prejudice simply means that I don't like anyone in general from Muslim or Arab countries, with no factual or rational basis for my preconceived notion of dislike. This is clearly not my position and I don't believe it is Trump's position as well.

I don't understand why a wall between the US and Mexico is a problem. We don't have free open immigration/travel between Mexico and US, and one way to reduce amount of illegal immigration/travel is to build a wall. People in cities put fences around their yards for the same reason, to keep other people out of their yard unless invited in. Some of the illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals or drug traffickers and this causes serious problems for the US. Resources along border states are severely strained. Do you deny this? You can acknowledge this without calling all Mexicans criminals or drug traffickers. Trump called for a stop on Muslim immigration until we can identify an effective process of vetting them with additional levels of scrutiny. This is not anti-Muslim prejudice based on my understanding. You also seem to think that discrimination is always a bad thing, but this is simply not true. We discriminate all the time. Some businesses refuse to hire people without a degree, regardless of individual merit. Some businesses will hire someone without a degree only if they pass additional tests, but will hire someone who has a degree without those tests. Do you consider this additional degree of scrutiny anti-Less-Educated? Applying greater scrutiny to a population that's strongly correlated with bad actors to identify those bad actors is a logical thing to do. You disagree?

With regards to white males who lack a college education, are you saying most of those are racist and therefore they support Trump's supposed racist views? Do you know who else supports Trump more than Clinton? Based on June 15-26 research by Pew Research: Whites in general, people 65 years or older in general, men 50 years or older in general, married men in general, and men, in general. Are you saying all these people have racist tendencies and that's why they support Trump? You seriously believe this?

Once again, as a poster a few posts above also pointed out, you really need to decide whether your argument is that Trump doesn't support discrimination or whether Trump's support discrimination is justified. You can't really make both arguments simultaneously. I'm not negotiating anything with you so you don't need to have a fallback position.

It is not my opinion that any of those groups you cite have racist tendencies. Rather, it is the findings of public opinion professionals that racism is prevalent among Trump supporters. Why are you having a difficult time accepting this?

What you are missing -- I suspect intentionally -- is that Trump's proposals are not meant to be evaluated as serious policy proposals. None of them can really be implemented. There are any number of reasons we can't build a wall on our southern border and even if we could, people would just climb over it. Not to mention it wouldn't address the 40% or whatever it is that arrive by airplane and simply overstay visas. Similarly, "extreme vetting" is unlikely to stop any terrorists, let alone the unborn children of those being vetted that Trump also cited as a target of his plans. Have you ever heard of an idea more stupid than his questionnaire? These proposals are meant as propaganda tools. They create an emotional appeal saying "I"m going to stop Mexican rapists and Muslim terrorists" even though everyone knows they won't. That emotional appeal wouldn't exist were it not for the negative stereotypes and prejudice that exists among his supporters. As such prejudice is not a unnecessary evil, but rather an essential element of Trump's hope to gain support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, I think it's beyond obvious that the moon is made of cheese. You can't prove a point by simply asserting it. If you are going to make a factual claim, you have to have actual facts to back it up. I find it repugnant that you think a significant number of Americans is racist without providing evidence, yet you refuse to acknowledge the well researched evidence that a significant portion of Muslims around the world hold ideals that are incompatible with American values due to their religious and cultural background.

What I think is beyond obvious is that you're doing what Jeff pointed out yesterday you're doing - trying to argue, at the same time, that a) prejudice against Muslims doesn't exist, and b) prejudice against Muslims is well justified.

Well this is because you and Jeff keep conflating being against an ideal with being against the population in general that's correlated with that ideal. I've pointed this out repeatedly but it seems you choose to ignore this important distinction. I've also repeatedly called for Jeff to define what he means by anti-Muslim or anti-Arab, but he has yet to do so, that will bring a lot of clarity to why we are having these seeming disagreements.

I also have had "run-ins" with Jeff over my concern about the lack of reliable vetting among the Syrian refugees, given the risk of terrorists possibly infiltrating that population (which Jeff admitted does exist but is a "small" risk). Instead, I have suggested we extend humanitarian aid over there until we can get a better process in place. As a result, I have been venomously accused of being anti-Muslim, an Islamophobe, and a fear-mongerer. It is unfortunate that someone's concern over this (even small) risk is extrapolated as a broad hatred of bigotry of all Muslims, none of which is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm when the same criminal act or what western society sees as criminal happens almost everyday by refugees of certain countries then i guess it has nothing to do with faith or culture

It may or may not have something to do with their faith and/or culture. That alone is not enough evidence to determine either way. Trump says Mexicans are rapists. Mexicans are Catholics. So, do Mexicans rape because they are Catholic?

No, because Mexican rapists are not using Catholic teachings as an explanation. Muslim criminals use their religious text/teachings to justify their actions, opinions that are often supported by religious leaders. I know the Muslims you know don't do this, but a significant portion of Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries do believe this. Read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?_r=0

This is from NY Times, a well known liberal publication. Open your eyes Jeff. Muslims is not a homogeneous population, a significant portion of them believe in the absolute validity of their religion.

Anyone can take a text out context and use it to support anything. That can be done, and has been done, to the Bible as well.

No shock to me, but "It turns out many ISIS recruits don't know much about Islam." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/17/it-turns-out-many-isis-recruits-dont-know-much-about-islam/

Well, we are not discussing why they use religious text/teachings to justify their behavior, just that they do in fact use religious text/teachings to justify their behavior. Why they do this is a far more complicated discussion and probably for a different forum. Yes, this same type of behavior has been associated with the Christian Bible as well, but contemporary Christianity have abandoned those medieval views and teachings. Those that do host extremist views like the Westboro Baptist Church are shunned by all and are the punchline to jokes. The contrast should be pretty obvious to you.

Are you suggesting that "contemporary Muslims" don't shun the extremist views of the minority?

Do you not understand that you sound like a complete hypocrite with little understanding of the world?

Oh I do agree that majority of Muslims do shun extremist views of the minority. However, 30% is still a minority just as 0.3% is also a minority but both you an I know that there is a big difference between 0.3% of a population versus 30% of a population. These numbers are for illustration of a point and are not actual numbers of anything.

To get a sense of how large of a minority population is that holds extremist views, look at this PEW research:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Look at their views on the right of women to divorce, whether women have free will, and their punishment for leaving the Islam faith. Note also that 29% of Muslims in Turkey believe suicide bombings are justified. The number is smaller in Turkey at 15%, 18% in Malaysia, 26% in Bangladesh, and 39% in Afghanistan. Yes there is a clear majority of Muslims who do not support suicide bombing, lack of free will for women, and many do not support death as punishment for leaving Islam. But if you had two immigrants applying for entry, one is a Muslim from Turkey and one is a Catholic from Mexico, who would you scrutinize more?

I really don't want this to become a this religion versus that religion debate. This is not the right forum for it. I fear it may have already gone to far down this path. I am just stating the data to illustrate the facts behind the issues. Lets debate the facts about how people act based on their religious/cultural background, and not the merits of the religion themselves.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, I think it's beyond obvious that the moon is made of cheese. You can't prove a point by simply asserting it. If you are going to make a factual claim, you have to have actual facts to back it up. I find it repugnant that you think a significant number of Americans is racist without providing evidence, yet you refuse to acknowledge the well researched evidence that a significant portion of Muslims around the world hold ideals that are incompatible with American values due to their religious and cultural background.

What I think is beyond obvious is that you're doing what Jeff pointed out yesterday you're doing - trying to argue, at the same time, that a) prejudice against Muslims doesn't exist, and b) prejudice against Muslims is well justified.

Well this is because you and Jeff keep conflating being against an ideal with being against the population in general that's correlated with that ideal. I've pointed this out repeatedly but it seems you choose to ignore this important distinction. I've also repeatedly called for Jeff to define what he means by anti-Muslim or anti-Arab, but he has yet to do so, that will bring a lot of clarity to why we are having these seeming disagreements.

I also have had "run-ins" with Jeff over my concern about the lack of reliable vetting among the Syrian refugees, given the risk of terrorists possibly infiltrating that population (which Jeff admitted does exist but is a "small" risk). Instead, I have suggested we extend humanitarian aid over there until we can get a better process in place. As a result, I have been venomously accused of being anti-Muslim, an Islamophobe, and a fear-mongerer. It is unfortunate that someone's concern over this (even small) risk is extrapolated as a broad hatred of bigotry of all Muslims, none of which is true.

I really don't understand why you folks openly espouse prejudicial and bigoted policies and then cry like babies when you get called prejudicial and bigoted. You admittedly support polices that apply to entire groups, regardless of the specific characteristics of individual members of those groups. That is the essence of bigotry. As I've said many times, it is true that we can't vet all potential Syrian refugees. But, it is also true that we can vet some of them. Why would you deny entry even to those who can be vetted? Moreover, as you will likely demonstrate now, whenever confronted with this question, you have resorted to broad generalizations about Muslims (while whining about being called an Islamophobe).

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again I think it really depends on what you consider anti-Muslim or anti-Arab prejudice. For example, people from Brazil have a higher rate of Zika virus infection than people from Canada, for example. If for the purpose of controlling Zika retransmission we exercised more scrutiny of Brazilians for entry into the United States, or those people who have recently traveled to and from Brazil, would you consider that anti-Brazil prejudice? To me, anti-Muslim or anti-Arab prejudice simply means that I don't like anyone in general from Muslim or Arab countries, with no factual or rational basis for my preconceived notion of dislike. This is clearly not my position and I don't believe it is Trump's position as well.

I don't understand why a wall between the US and Mexico is a problem. We don't have free open immigration/travel between Mexico and US, and one way to reduce amount of illegal immigration/travel is to build a wall. People in cities put fences around their yards for the same reason, to keep other people out of their yard unless invited in. Some of the illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals or drug traffickers and this causes serious problems for the US. Resources along border states are severely strained. Do you deny this? You can acknowledge this without calling all Mexicans criminals or drug traffickers. Trump called for a stop on Muslim immigration until we can identify an effective process of vetting them with additional levels of scrutiny. This is not anti-Muslim prejudice based on my understanding. You also seem to think that discrimination is always a bad thing, but this is simply not true. We discriminate all the time. Some businesses refuse to hire people without a degree, regardless of individual merit. Some businesses will hire someone without a degree only if they pass additional tests, but will hire someone who has a degree without those tests. Do you consider this additional degree of scrutiny anti-Less-Educated? Applying greater scrutiny to a population that's strongly correlated with bad actors to identify those bad actors is a logical thing to do. You disagree?

With regards to white males who lack a college education, are you saying most of those are racist and therefore they support Trump's supposed racist views? Do you know who else supports Trump more than Clinton? Based on June 15-26 research by Pew Research: Whites in general, people 65 years or older in general, men 50 years or older in general, married men in general, and men, in general. Are you saying all these people have racist tendencies and that's why they support Trump? You seriously believe this?

Once again, as a poster a few posts above also pointed out, you really need to decide whether your argument is that Trump doesn't support discrimination or whether Trump's support discrimination is justified. You can't really make both arguments simultaneously. I'm not negotiating anything with you so you don't need to have a fallback position.

It is not my opinion that any of those groups you cite have racist tendencies. Rather, it is the findings of public opinion professionals that racism is prevalent among Trump supporters. Why are you having a difficult time accepting this?

What you are missing -- I suspect intentionally -- is that Trump's proposals are not meant to be evaluated as serious policy proposals. None of them can really be implemented. There are any number of reasons we can't build a wall on our southern border and even if we could, people would just climb over it. Not to mention it wouldn't address the 40% or whatever it is that arrive by airplane and simply overstay visas. Similarly, "extreme vetting" is unlikely to stop any terrorists, let alone the unborn children of those being vetted that Trump also cited as a target of his plans. Have you ever heard of an idea more stupid than his questionnaire? These proposals are meant as propaganda tools. They create an emotional appeal saying "I"m going to stop Mexican rapists and Muslim terrorists" even though everyone knows they won't. That emotional appeal wouldn't exist were it not for the negative stereotypes and prejudice that exists among his supporters. As such prejudice is not a unnecessary evil, but rather an essential element of Trump's hope to gain support.

Well, once again, you are conflating discriminating against an ideal with discriminating against the general population that is correlated with that ideal. We are not going to get anywhere with this discussion unless you understand this distinction. Until you make that distinction, you calling me or anyone else anti-Muslim or anti-Arab will ring hollow.

I see that you are trying to side step the point that quite a significant portion of the US population supports Trump and by your insinuation are racist. You are now essentially saying "well, I didn't say it, the professional did, don't you believe the professionals?" I don't consider pundits or talking heads on either side of the campaign "professionals". They are mouthpieces with an agenda, we all need to sift through the information to form our own opinions. If you don't have an opinion Jeff, I suggest you don't make the accusation that a significant portion of Americans are racist. Note that even though only a minority of 43 percent of women support Trump, are you saying they are doing so out of racist tendencies as well? In all, between 30-40% of Americans of various ilk support Trump, they are racists?

I agree with you that many of Trump's policies will not be effective. He often have the right diagnosis but offer the wrong remedy. Guy comes in with a broken leg and he says "You have a broken leg! Nurse, get this man an enema, stat!" This is why I don't think he is a good presidential candidate. However at least he gives the right diagnosis. Hillary and Obama looks at the same situation and says "Oh, it's just a headache, take some Advil and see how you feel in the morning." Between these two, I at least prefer the guy that identifies the problem correctly - at least here you have a chance that his advisors will guide him towards the right remedy. You can't offer Hillary/Obama a remedy if they don't even acknowledge the problem. Look at what Obama says about identifying Radical Islam, he thinks it's pointless because just saying the name doesn't make the problem go away. Well, if you are a guy with a broken leg, you'd want a doctor that's willing to tell you that you have a broken leg and count on the nurse to not give you an enema.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I'm Indian American and faced way more discrimination in dc and the north east than in bozeman mt, boulder, South Dakota or western Wyoming.

Sometimes when you are an outlier, local society looks at you as an individual and treats you as such and doesn't ascribe stereotypes to you.

In the northeast/mid atlantic, people are really quick to stereotype based on group because they feel like they've met a sufficient amount of your particular race/ethnicity/nationality to do so.

That's interesting. I actually feel safer in the DC area and think that people judge me less compared to when I go to rural/small towns. It's easier to fit in here as this is such a racially diverse area.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, I think it's beyond obvious that the moon is made of cheese. You can't prove a point by simply asserting it. If you are going to make a factual claim, you have to have actual facts to back it up. I find it repugnant that you think a significant number of Americans is racist without providing evidence, yet you refuse to acknowledge the well researched evidence that a significant portion of Muslims around the world hold ideals that are incompatible with American values due to their religious and cultural background.

What I think is beyond obvious is that you're doing what Jeff pointed out yesterday you're doing - trying to argue, at the same time, that a) prejudice against Muslims doesn't exist, and b) prejudice against Muslims is well justified.

Well this is because you and Jeff keep conflating being against an ideal with being against the population in general that's correlated with that ideal. I've pointed this out repeatedly but it seems you choose to ignore this important distinction. I've also repeatedly called for Jeff to define what he means by anti-Muslim or anti-Arab, but he has yet to do so, that will bring a lot of clarity to why we are having these seeming disagreements.

I also have had "run-ins" with Jeff over my concern about the lack of reliable vetting among the Syrian refugees, given the risk of terrorists possibly infiltrating that population (which Jeff admitted does exist but is a "small" risk). Instead, I have suggested we extend humanitarian aid over there until we can get a better process in place. As a result, I have been venomously accused of being anti-Muslim, an Islamophobe, and a fear-mongerer. It is unfortunate that someone's concern over this (even small) risk is extrapolated as a broad hatred of bigotry of all Muslims, none of which is true.

I really don't understand why you folks openly espouse prejudicial and bigoted policies and then cry like babies when you get called prejudicial and bigoted. You admittedly support polices that apply to entire groups, regardless of the specific characteristics of individual members of those groups. That is the essence of bigotry. As I've said many times, it is true that we can't vet all potential Syrian refugees. But, it is also true that we can vet some of them. Why would you deny entry even to those who can be vetted? Moreover, as you will likely demonstrate now, whenever confronted with this question, you have resorted to broad generalizations about Muslims (while whining about being called an Islamophobe).

Wow, that's quite a low standard for bigotry. Do you support driver license testing for all new drivers versus non testing of existing drivers that moved in from another state? That's a policy that's applied to an entire group, regardless of the specific characteristics of individual members of those groups. Is driver license testing the essence of bigotry? If driver license testing is not bigotry, which I suspect you'll agree that it's not, how is scrutiny of immigrants bigotry?

I see we have a clear misunderstanding here. I am all for welcoming immigrants from which ever background as long as they believe and support our American ideals. The US has a well integrated citizenry made up of individuals from all corners of the world. Their merits are individually assessed through our immigration process. It is precisely because of this individual vetting that someone like my parents, members of the communist party from a communist country, could be welcomed to the US and accepted to join the citizenship. So if we can properly vet Syrian refugees, by all means lets do that. And I don't use "properly vet" as a nebulous standard - the US knows how to run an immigration process, as we are a nation of immigrants. If processing capacity needs to be increased, I'd gladly pay additional taxes to support that activity.

At this stage of the discussion I find it quite a bit disingenuous for you to represent my position as being against all Syrian immigration, even those that can be vetted. The only way we can have a productive discussion is to take what the other side write at face value, instead of misreading and misrepresenting their position.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, once again, you are conflating discriminating against an ideal with discriminating against the general population that is correlated with that ideal. We are not going to get anywhere with this discussion unless you understand this distinction. Until you make that distinction, you calling me or anyone else anti-Muslim or anti-Arab will ring hollow.

I see that you are trying to side step the point that quite a significant portion of the US population supports Trump and by your insinuation are racist. You are now essentially saying "well, I didn't say it, the professional did, don't you believe the professionals?" I don't consider pundits or talking heads on either side of the campaign "professionals". They are mouthpieces with an agenda, we all need to sift through the information to form our own opinions. If you don't have an opinion Jeff, I suggest you don't make the accusation that a significant portion of Americans are racist. Note that even though only a minority of 43 percent of women support Trump, are you saying they are doing so out of racist tendencies as well? In all, between 30-40% of Americans of various ilk support Trump, they are racists?

I agree with you that many of Trump's policies will not be effective. He often have the right diagnosis but offer the wrong remedy. Guy comes in with a broken leg and he says "You have a broken leg! Nurse, get this man an enema, stat!" This is why I don't think he is a good presidential candidate. However at least he gives the right diagnosis. Hillary and Obama looks at the same situation and says "Oh, it's just a headache, take some Advil and see how you feel in the morning." Between these two, I at least prefer the guy that identifies the problem correctly - at least here you have a chance that his advisors will guide him towards the right remedy. You can't offer Hillary/Obama a remedy if they don't even acknowledge the problem. Look at what Obama says about identifying Radical Islam, he thinks it's pointless because just saying the name doesn't make the problem go away. Well, if you are a guy with a broken leg, you'd want a doctor that's willing to tell you that you have a broken leg and count on the nurse to not give you an enema.

I suspect that you are a farmer, or at least the owner of a large barn, because otherwise I don't know how you would store the large amounts of straw needed to construct your straw man arguments. The data the I mentioned didn't come from pundits or talking heads. Rather, it came from public opinion professionals. I am actually surprised that this even needs to be discussed given the amount of attention that has been given to the racial attitudes of Trump supporters. There has been poll after poll and survey after survey. Out of curiosity, is it your belief that racism is not common among Trump supporters?

Here is a fact: Trump has focused extremely negative attention on Muslims, supporting policies that specifically target Muslims. His negative view of Muslims is clearly embraced by a majority of his supporters. When polls show that "Nearly two-thirds of Trump supporters (64%) say that Muslims living in the U.S. should be subject to additional scrutiny than people in other religious groups" that's not really up for debate. Yet, you appear stunned by the mere suggestion that these folks are prejudiced because you don't consider singling out a specific religious group for additional scrutiny to meet your definition of prejudice. Rather, you will argue that this sort of discrimination makes perfect sense, it's just like zika.

Cite for poll: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/11/trump-supporters-differ-from-other-gop-voters-on-foreign-policy-immigration-issues/

What kind of message do you believe is sent by political leaders who openly advocate discriminatory polices against Muslims? Can you believe, if only for a minute, that such messages might provoke hatred for or violence against Muslims here in the US? I think so. I think that happens. I think it has happened. So, excuse me for not splitting hairs about what is and is not discrimination. When you make a policy that applies to Muslims and nobody but Muslims, that is discriminatory and that is prejudiced.

So, you think that Obama and Clinton don't understand the problem. I think you don't understand the problem. Two groups support describing ISIS and groups like it as "Muslim" or "Islamic": 1) those groups themselves; and 2) people like you. I would think that if you find yourself sharing a goal with ISIS, you might want to reconsider your position. Islam, like Christianity, comes in many forms. Just as there is no legal body who decides who is and who is not a Christian, there is no such body for Muslims. People can call themselves whatever they want. If ISIS wants to call themselves "Muslims", they are welcome. Who are we to say otherwise? But, we don't have to agree to call them such ourselves. We have no incentive to assist ISIS or any group like it in achieving its goals.

Trump and those like you can say, "we mean 'radical Islam, not all Muslims'" but then you pull out data from someplace and claim that all Muslims or at least a significant number supports the same things that you consider "radical". So, that distinction becomes meaningless. What the average person hears is "radical Muslims are bad" and "all Muslims are radical." So, let's just drop the pretense.

Obama has made a number of mistakes, but refusing to call terrorist groups "radical Muslims" is not one of them.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that's quite a low standard for bigotry. Do you support driver license testing for all new drivers versus non testing of existing drivers that moved in from another state? That's a policy that's applied to an entire group, regardless of the specific characteristics of individual members of those groups. Is driver license testing the essence of bigotry? If driver license testing is not bigotry, which I suspect you'll agree that it's not, how is scrutiny of immigrants bigotry?

All drivers are given the same test. If Muslims were given a different test, your metaphor make make more sense. Trump, and I suspect you, propose a separate test for Muslims based on nothing more than the fact that they are Muslims. If you don't understand that as bigoted, I'm afraid that we don't have a lot to discuss.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that's quite a low standard for bigotry. Do you support driver license testing for all new drivers versus non testing of existing drivers that moved in from another state? That's a policy that's applied to an entire group, regardless of the specific characteristics of individual members of those groups. Is driver license testing the essence of bigotry? If driver license testing is not bigotry, which I suspect you'll agree that it's not, how is scrutiny of immigrants bigotry?

All drivers are given the same test. If Muslims were given a different test, your metaphor make make more sense. Trump, and I suspect you, propose a separate test for Muslims based on nothing more than the fact that they are Muslims. If you don't understand that as bigoted, I'm afraid that we don't have a lot to discuss.

Very clearly not all drivers are given the same test in my example. Drivers moving in from a different state are not tested at all. If you continue to only read what you want to read and ignore things that don't conform to your existing views, then you are right, we don't have a lot to discuss.

Of course we should give different tests based on the situation. Just as you would screen new drivers more carefully, you would screen people from communist countries more carefully, and you would also screen more carefully people from countries where a significant minority of the population hold believes incompatible with our core American values. I can't believe I am having this discussion - do you not focus your limited resources in the areas where there is more occurrence of problems? I did software testing for a living in a previous career you and you bet your ass we more vigorously tested software delivered by a company that had more defects in the past, regardless of who the actual coder was that wrote a module. But based on your view, our increased scrutiny of that software vendor amounted to bigotry.

Unbelievable.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that's quite a low standard for bigotry. Do you support driver license testing for all new drivers versus non testing of existing drivers that moved in from another state? That's a policy that's applied to an entire group, regardless of the specific characteristics of individual members of those groups. Is driver license testing the essence of bigotry? If driver license testing is not bigotry, which I suspect you'll agree that it's not, how is scrutiny of immigrants bigotry?

All drivers are given the same test. If Muslims were given a different test, your metaphor make make more sense. Trump, and I suspect you, propose a separate test for Muslims based on nothing more than the fact that they are Muslims. If you don't understand that as bigoted, I'm afraid that we don't have a lot to discuss.

Very clearly not all drivers are given the same test in my example. Drivers moving in from a different state are not tested at all. If you continue to only read what you want to read and ignore things that don't conform to your existing views, then you are right, we don't have a lot to discuss.

Of course we should give different tests based on the situation. Just as you would screen new drivers more carefully, you would screen people from communist countries more carefully, and you would also screen more carefully people from countries where a significant minority of the population hold believes incompatible with our core American values. I can't believe I am having this discussion - do you not focus your limited resources in the areas where there is more occurrence of problems? I did software testing for a living in a previous career you and you bet your ass we more vigorously tested software delivered by a company that had more defects in the past, regardless of who the actual coder was that wrote a module. But based on your view, our increased scrutiny of that software vendor amounted to bigotry.

Unbelievable.

If your point is that prejudice and discrimination are just hunky dory, I'm not going to argue with you. Just don't get mad when I say that you support prejudice and discrimination.

As I keep saying, you can't simultaneously argue that Trump (and you by extension) don't support discrimination and that discrimination is justified. You really need to pick your argument and run with it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that's quite a low standard for bigotry. Do you support driver license testing for all new drivers versus non testing of existing drivers that moved in from another state? That's a policy that's applied to an entire group, regardless of the specific characteristics of individual members of those groups. Is driver license testing the essence of bigotry? If driver license testing is not bigotry, which I suspect you'll agree that it's not, how is scrutiny of immigrants bigotry?

All drivers are given the same test. If Muslims were given a different test, your metaphor make make more sense. Trump, and I suspect you, propose a separate test for Muslims based on nothing more than the fact that they are Muslims. If you don't understand that as bigoted, I'm afraid that we don't have a lot to discuss.

PP (but not the one from immediately above)....the one you keep labeling as Islamophobe due to my concerns about the Syrian refugee population.....I'm not saying a test (or ban) for ALL Muslims. Just the ones who are coming from countries known to harbor terrorists. Muslims from Canada or wherever, no problem.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, that's quite a low standard for bigotry. Do you support driver license testing for all new drivers versus non testing of existing drivers that moved in from another state? That's a policy that's applied to an entire group, regardless of the specific characteristics of individual members of those groups. Is driver license testing the essence of bigotry? If driver license testing is not bigotry, which I suspect you'll agree that it's not, how is scrutiny of immigrants bigotry?

All drivers are given the same test. If Muslims were given a different test, your metaphor make make more sense. Trump, and I suspect you, propose a separate test for Muslims based on nothing more than the fact that they are Muslims. If you don't understand that as bigoted, I'm afraid that we don't have a lot to discuss.

PP (but not the one from immediately above)....the one you keep labeling as Islamophobe due to my concerns about the Syrian refugee population.....I'm not saying a test (or ban) for ALL Muslims. Just the ones who are coming from countries known to harbor terrorists. Muslims from Canada or wherever, no problem.

I suspect the number of Muslim refugees arriving from Canada will not be large. On the other hand, there have been cases of Muslim terrorists coming from Canada:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ressam