Another case of home grown terrorists or......

[Value Buy]

imported on a visa program under humanitarian issues without the proper vetting?

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minnesota-man-accused-of-conspiring-to-help-islamic-state/ar-AAgeqPW?li=BBnb7Kz

Discuss

[Virgil Showlion]

ibid.:

About a dozen Minnesota residents have traveled to Syria to join jihadist groups there since late 2013. In addition, more than 22 young men from Minnesota's Somali community have left the state since 2007 to join al-Shabab in Somalia.

About says it all.

Not many, but there are apparently some here.

A keg of rum to the man who can figure out whether or not it's a good thing that would-be terrorists are leaving the US.

[busymom]

Yes, we've got a problem here. It appears that for some young men, the "American dream" didn't work out the way they'd hoped for. If you can't get the education you want, or the job you've wished for, it seems a few decide, instead of joining the armed forces, that becoming a jihadist is a "good" option. Men in their late teens or early twenties seem to be the most easily influenced.

So, how do we stop this?

[billisonboard]

Dec 10, 2015 10:33:50 GMT -5 busymom said:

Yes, we've got a problem here. It appears that for some young men, the "American dream" didn't work out the way they'd hoped for. If you can't get the education you want, or the job you've wished for, it seems a few decide, instead of joining the armed forces, that becoming a jihadist is a "good" option. Men in their late teens or early twenties seem to be the most easily influenced.

So, how do we stop this?

An age old question.

[Ombud]

www.yahoo.com/news/finnish-court-hold-twins-custody-over-iraq-massacre-001836277.html

"Finland's Interior Minister Petteri Orpo reiterated an earlier estimate by the country's Security Police that around 300 people in the country are known to have connections to "terrorist" groups abroad."

And they've taken in less than we're considering .... do the math

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 11, 2015 9:14:24 GMT -5 Ombud said:

www.yahoo.com/news/finnish-court-hold-twins-custody-over-iraq-massacre-001836277.html

"Finland's Interior Minister Petteri Orpo reiterated an earlier estimate by the country's Security Police that around 300 people in the country are known to have connections to "terrorist" groups abroad."

And they've taken in less than we're considering .... do the math

Yeah, but ours are going to be vetted by a rigorous process of asking questions.

[ArchietheDragon]

Dec 11, 2015 9:25:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 11, 2015 9:14:24 GMT -5 Ombud said:

www.yahoo.com/news/finnish-court-hold-twins-custody-over-iraq-massacre-001836277.html

"Finland's Interior Minister Petteri Orpo reiterated an earlier estimate by the country's Security Police that around 300 people in the country are known to have connections to "terrorist" groups abroad."

And they've taken in less than we're considering .... do the math

Yeah, but ours are going to be vetted by a rigorous process of asking questions.

And if they lie about not being a terrorist we should water board them until they confess and then throw them into Gitmo. 

[djAdvocate]

Dec 11, 2015 9:25:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 11, 2015 9:14:24 GMT -5 Ombud said:

www.yahoo.com/news/finnish-court-hold-twins-custody-over-iraq-massacre-001836277.html

"Finland's Interior Minister Petteri Orpo reiterated an earlier estimate by the country's Security Police that around 300 people in the country are known to have connections to "terrorist" groups abroad."

And they've taken in less than we're considering .... do the math

Yeah, but ours are going to be vetted by a rigorous process of asking questions.

yours?  yeah.  you guys have issues.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 11, 2015 9:53:06 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Dec 11, 2015 9:25:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Yeah, but ours are going to be vetted by a rigorous process of asking questions.

And if they lie about not being a terrorist we should water board them until they confess and then throw them into Gitmo. 

Even better: we should send them to live with djAdvocate.

Which reminds me: DJ, how fare you on your promise here?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 11, 2015 11:54:23 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 11, 2015 9:53:06 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

And if they lie about not being a terrorist we should water board them until they confess and then throw them into Gitmo. 

Even better: we should send them to live with djAdvocate .

Which reminds me: DJ, how fare you on your promise here?

i told you.  the INS told me to check their website in two weeks for updates.  i will do that today.  thanks for reminding me.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 11, 2015 11:45:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 11, 2015 9:25:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Yeah, but ours are going to be vetted by a rigorous process of asking questions.

yours?  yeah.  you guys have issues.

And yours don't?

I gave you all six steps of the US's patented "six-step vetting system". I asked you 'Which of these steps filters out terrorism?' and I got nothing back from you except vague appeals to the competency of the US government, which I repeatedly told you were meaningless.

The only thing you have standing between you and terrorists is the hope that they're already known by the FBI, the DHS, or international terror agencies, which is no more and no less than what Canada does. This is the best case scenario, because in reality the FBI readily admits it can't vet this many refugees.

That's it. That's all you've got. Your joke of a six-step process, and the hope that enough of these guys have some kind of reliable biometric data recorded by terror agencies. You don't even have the added protection (if we can even call it that) of filtering out unaccompanied males because two words, "I'm gay.", get you right around it faster than you can say 'Allahu Akbar'.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 11, 2015 12:20:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 11, 2015 11:45:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yours?  yeah.  you guys have issues.

And yours don't?

I gave you all six steps of the US's patented "six-step vetting system". I asked you 'Which of these steps filters out terrorism?' and I got nothing back from you except vague appeals to the competency of the US government, which I repeatedly told you were meaningless.

The only thing you have standing between you and terrorists is the hope that they're already known by the FBI, the DHS, or international terror agencies, which is no more and no less than what Canada does. This is the best case scenario, because in reality the FBI readily admits it can't vet this many refugees.

That's it. That's all you've got. Your joke of a six-step process, and the hope that enough of these guys have some kind of reliable biometric data recorded by terror agencies. You don't even have the added protection (if we can even call it that) of filtering out unaccompanied males because two words, "I'm gay.", get you right around it faster than you can say 'Allahu Akbar'.

my joke of a 6 step process that take (18) months, involves background checks, personal interviews and identity verification?  that joke?

not laughing. 

PS- this is bordering on personal.  can you see why?  you are badgering me, Virgil.  you are presuming stuff that is not true.  cut it out.  tyia.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 11, 2015 12:25:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 11, 2015 12:20:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

And yours don't?

I gave you all six steps of the US's patented "six-step vetting system". I asked you 'Which of these steps filters out terrorism?' and I got nothing back from you except vague appeals to the competency of the US government, which I repeatedly told you were meaningless.

The only thing you have standing between you and terrorists is the hope that they're already known by the FBI, the DHS, or international terror agencies, which is no more and no less than what Canada does. This is the best case scenario, because in reality the FBI readily admits it can't vet this many refugees.

That's it. That's all you've got. Your joke of a six-step process, and the hope that enough of these guys have some kind of reliable biometric data recorded by terror agencies. You don't even have the added protection (if we can even call it that) of filtering out unaccompanied males because two words, "I'm gay.", get you right around it faster than you can say 'Allahu Akbar'.

my joke of a 6 step process that take (18) months, involves background checks, personal interviews and identity verification?  that joke?

not laughing. 

PS- this is bordering on personal.  can you see why?  you are badgering me, Virgil.  you are presuming stuff that is not true.  cut it out.  tyia.

Yes, that joke.

I'm glad you're not laughing.

What 'stuff' am I presuming that isn't true?

[djAdvocate]

Dec 11, 2015 12:33:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 11, 2015 12:25:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

my joke of a 6 step process that take (18) months, involves background checks, personal interviews and identity verification?  that joke?

not laughing. 

PS- this is bordering on personal.  can you see why?  you are badgering me, Virgil.  you are presuming stuff that is not true.  cut it out.  tyia.

Yes, that joke.

I'm glad you're not laughing.

What 'stuff' am I presuming that isn't true?

i can't reply without violating our point-by-point rebuttal rule.  you made too many separate and unrelated points in post 10.  will you allow me to do that?

edit: if not, i will simply say that comparing the refugee program to what happened in LA is a red herring that would make even Limbaugh blush.

[Robert not Bobby]

I think the world is a mess.

I think 99 % of Muslims are decent and peace loving people...hey, Achmed just wants the best for his family, just like John Smith does...but 1% of 1.6 billion people is a large and scary number.

I think that the earth is not getting warmer, but in my lifetimes, I have seen bizarre extremes in weather happening more often.

I think Caitlyn Jenner is still a man...why so much confusion about sexual identity. I thank god I am a man born into a mans body who loves women born into womens bodies...and that is complicated enough...anything else hurts my mind.

I think some cops are idiotic racist thugs, but the vast majority, I think, are decent.

I think Donald Trump is an idiot...but why does he resonate so with such a large portion of the people...maybe he isn't such an idiot. Maybe this is the new zeitgeist and he is ridding it.

I think, I'm starting to bore myself.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 11, 2015 13:05:53 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

I think the world is a mess.

I think 99 % of Muslims are decent and peace loving people...hey, Achmed just wants the best for his family, just like John Smith does...but 1% of 1.6 billion people is a large and scary number.

I think that the earth is not getting warmer, but in my lifetimes, I have seen bizarre extremes in weather happening more often.

I think Caitlyn Jenner is still a man...why so much confusion about sexual identity. I thank god I am a man born into a mans body who loves women born into womens bodies...and that is complicated enough...anything else hurts my mind.

I think some cops are idiotic racist thugs, but the vast majority, I think, are decent.

I think Donald Trump is an idiot...but why does he resonate so with such a large portion of the people...maybe he isn't such an idiot. Maybe this is the new zeitgeist and he is ridding it.

I think, I'm starting to bore myself.

Trump provides simple solutions to complicated problems, and states them with confidence.

that is enough to win him AT LEAST one third of the vote.

i am not proud of that fact, but i think it is true.

[Robert not Bobby]

DJ, I mostly agree with you.

But here's the thing, it seems to me that people are sick of politicians who side step issues, are politically correct and don't speak their minds honestly.

Trump is the anti-politician...he is a showman a huckster...but he resonates.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 11, 2015 13:36:21 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

DJ, I mostly agree with you.

But here's the thing, it seems to me that people are sick of politicians who side step issues, are politically correct and don't speak their minds honestly.

Trump is the anti-politician...he is a showman a huckster...but he resonates.

of course he does.  but what i am saying is that it is psychological.

ALL candidates capitalize on this. 

i think that where i differ from folks like Paul is that i see guys like this, who run mostly on narcissistic froth, are very very vulnerable.  they OCCASIONALLY win.  that is true.  they do.  including some of the worst leaders in global history.  but, the USUALLY lose- especially in systems like this.

i am not going to gloat about our process here in the US.  i think it sucks.  but it does have one advantage.  2 years is a long time to vet people like Trump.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 11, 2015 12:35:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 11, 2015 12:33:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Yes, that joke.

I'm glad you're not laughing.

What 'stuff' am I presuming that isn't true?

i can't reply without violating our point-by-point rebuttal rule.  you made too many separate and unrelated points in post 10.  will you allow me to do that?

edit: if not, i will simply say that comparing the refugee program to what happened in LA is a red herring that would make even Limbaugh blush.

Go ahead.

Incidentally, I'm not comparing the refugee program to St. Bernardino.

If you want to reach some common ground without a lengthy debate, it would suffice for me that you endorse the following statement: "By resettling 10,000 refugees in America, I acknowledge that the US will be allowing dozens, perhaps hundreds of unknown terrorists immigrate to the US mainland. Even so, I strongly believe that it is our moral, humanitarian imperative to give respite to these refugees in spite of the inherent dangers."

If you endorse the above, it will convince me that you have a reasonable, clear-headed perspective on the costs and benefits of the resettlement program. In that case we needn't argue over the limits of refugee screening effectiveness.

[Robert not Bobby]

Fair enough...it seems like a never ending election cycle...but I don't think Trump supporters are going to fade away. There will be interesting days for the Grand Old Party to come.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 11, 2015 13:48:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 11, 2015 12:35:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i can't reply without violating our point-by-point rebuttal rule.  you made too many separate and unrelated points in post 10.  will you allow me to do that?

edit: if not, i will simply say that comparing the refugee program to what happened in LA is a red herring that would make even Limbaugh blush.

Go ahead.

Incidentally, I'm not comparing the refugee program to St. Bernardino.

If you want to reach some common ground without a lengthy debate, it would suffice for me that you endorse the following statement: "By resettling 10,000 refugees in America, I acknowledge that the US will be allowing dozens, perhaps hundreds of unknown terrorists immigrate to the US mainland. Even so, I strongly believe that it is our moral, humanitarian imperative to give respite to these refugees in spite of the inherent dangers."

If you endorse the above, it will convince me that you have a reasonable, clear-headed perspective on the costs and benefits of the resettlement program. In that case we needn't argue over the limits of refugee screening effectiveness.

good.  glad you are not doing that.  it seems like lots of others are.

i am not going to make any statements, Virgil.  i have gone WAY beyond that by volunteering to house them.  pick on somebody who doesn't have that much commitment.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 11, 2015 12:20:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html

Dec 11, 2015 11:45:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yours?  yeah.  you guys have issues.

And yours don't?

i have already offered my opinion on that.  you rejected it.  that's fine.  but please refrain from asking that question in the future.

I gave you all six steps of the US's patented "six-step vetting system". I asked you 'Which of these steps filters out terrorism?' and I got nothing back from you except vague appeals to the competency of the US government, which I repeatedly told you were meaningless.

first of all, i didn't even see your "all six steps" response, Virgil.  so you badgering me repeatedly served no purpose, other than raising your blood pressure.  i saw your post with all of the bolded portions, and it looked to me like you were responding to someone else's post, and i tend to NOT involve myself with such things. 

The only thing you have standing between you and terrorists is the hope that they're already known by the FBI, the DHS, or international terror agencies, which is no more and no less than what Canada does. This is the best case scenario, because in reality the FBI readily admits it can't vet this many refugees.

yes it can.  it just needs to extend the waiting list.  it is purely a function of time, and they should take as much as they need, imo.

That's it. That's all you've got. Your joke of a six-step process, and the hope that enough of these guys have some kind of reliable biometric data recorded by terror agencies. You don't even have the added protection (if we can even call it that) of filtering out unaccompanied males because two words, "I'm gay.", get you right around it faster than you can say 'Allahu Akbar'.

so let's summarize.:

first, you wrongly assume that i have read your post, then you wrongly assume that i have avoided responding to it, then you wrongly assume that i have no case to be made other than my occasional remarks on the subject (some of which you missed entirely).  those were all wrong assumptions, Virgil.  and i would challenge you at this moment to reflect on it, because i see this as a pattern with you, along with making these discussions unnecessarily personal.

i made notes on which of your "six points of rebuttal" were wrong at home, but i am not going to reread your post now to figure it out.  it will wait.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 11, 2015 15:26:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 11, 2015 12:20:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.htmlAnd yours don't?

i have already offered my opinion on that.  you rejected it.  that's fine.  but please refrain from asking that question in the future.

I gave you all six steps of the US's patented "six-step vetting system". I asked you 'Which of these steps filters out terrorism?' and I got nothing back from you except vague appeals to the competency of the US government, which I repeatedly told you were meaningless.

first of all, i didn't even see your "all six steps" response, Virgil.  so you badgering me repeatedly served no purpose, other than raising your blood pressure.  i saw your post with all of the bolded portions, and it looked to me like you were responding to someone else's post, and i tend to NOT involve myself with such things. 

The only thing you have standing between you and terrorists is the hope that they're already known by the FBI, the DHS, or international terror agencies, which is no more and no less than what Canada does. This is the best case scenario, because in reality the FBI readily admits it can't vet this many refugees.

yes it can.  it just needs to extend the waiting list.  it is purely a function of time, and they should take as much as they need, imo.

That's it. That's all you've got. Your joke of a six-step process, and the hope that enough of these guys have some kind of reliable biometric data recorded by terror agencies. You don't even have the added protection (if we can even call it that) of filtering out unaccompanied males because two words, "I'm gay.", get you right around it faster than you can say 'Allahu Akbar'.

so let's summarize.:

first, you wrongly assume that i have read your post, then you wrongly assume that i have avoided responding to it, then you wrongly assume that i have no case to be made other than my occasional remarks on the subject (some of which you missed entirely).  those were all wrong assumptions, Virgil.  and i would challenge you at this moment to reflect on it, because i see this as a pattern with you, along with making these discussions unnecessarily personal.

i made notes on which of your "six points of rebuttal" were wrong at home, but i am not going to reread your post now to figure it out.  it will wait.

What do you mean by "personal"?

In the "repeatedly told you were meaningless" post, it's true I was frustrated by what I perceived to be evasiveness, but this is no more personal than your challenging others on their "red herrings". It's normal and acceptable in this forum to accuse others of evasiveness, misinformation, presumptuousness (which you're accusing me of now), obfuscation, ignorance, hypocrisy, logical inconsistency, stubbornness, and flawed reasoning. These are faults of argument. None of them are inherently personal.

Indeed I'd assumed you'd read my six-steps post. It was a reasonable assumption. Even if it wasn't, your appropriate response here is "I didn't read your six-steps post, but now that I've seen it... [insert comments on six-steps post]."

What you call "badgering" is nothing more than sustained criticism of your arguments. It doesn't "raise my blood pressure". Sometimes a criticism relies on an incorrect assumption (e.g. the assumption that I'm growing upset). It happens every day on this forum. The appropriate response is to dispel the misconception. All high level discourse relies on assumptions. The higher-level the discourse, the more assumptions are necessary. Inevitably some are going to be wrong. That doesn't make the issues personal.

If you want impersonal debates, stop conflating fair attacks on your theses and tactics with personal grievances. Lately I can't seem to say two words to you in any thread where you're heavily embattled without you digressing from the topic at hand to accuse me of "badgering" you, and then refusing to address my criticisms.

Case in point: Reply #10. The first paragraph is a rhetorical question. The second summarizes where we last left the argument, providing links for clarification. The third is supplemental. The fourth is a conclusion summarizing the reasoning behind my skepticism in the first. There's nothing personal in any of these.

I've told you in the past, if my sustained criticism upsets you, which includes i) assumptions that may be incorrect, ii) criticisms of the form "what you're saying now isn't what you said then", iii) criticisms of the form "your belief that [...] is not reasonable", and iv) criticisms of the form "you're being evasive" or "that isn't an answer to my question", then put me on ignore. If you expect your replies to my criticisms to be automatically accepted by me without further rebuttals or criticisms, put me on ignore.

If you clearly state "I don't have enough time to debate that." or "Let's agree to disagree.", I'll respect that. Otherwise you're going to get "badgering", because "badgering" is in fact sustained adversarial inquiry, which is the sine qua non of any forum for debate.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 11, 2015 19:04:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 11, 2015 15:26:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so let's summarize.:

first, you wrongly assume that i have read your post, then you wrongly assume that i have avoided responding to it, then you wrongly assume that i have no case to be made other than my occasional remarks on the subject (some of which you missed entirely).  those were all wrong assumptions, Virgil.  and i would challenge you at this moment to reflect on it, because i see this as a pattern with you, along with making these discussions unnecessarily personal.

i made notes on which of your "six points of rebuttal" were wrong at home, but i am not going to reread your post now to figure it out.  it will wait.

What do you mean by "personal"?

In the "repeatedly told you were meaningless" post, it's true I was frustrated by what I perceived to be evasiveness, but this is no more personal than your challenging others on their "red herrings". It's normal and acceptable in this forum to accuse others of evasiveness, misinformation, presumptuousness (which you're accusing me of now), obfuscation, ignorance, hypocrisy, logical inconsistency, stubbornness, and flawed reasoning. These are faults of argument. None of them are inherently personal.

Indeed I'd assumed you'd read my six-steps post. It was a reasonable assumption. Even if it wasn't, your appropriate response here is "I didn't read your six-steps post, but now that I've seen it... [insert comments on six-steps post]."

What you call "badgering" is nothing more than sustained criticism of your arguments. It doesn't "raise my blood pressure". Sometimes a criticism relies on an incorrect assumption (e.g. the assumption that I'm growing upset). It happens every day on this forum. The appropriate response is to dispel the misconception. All high level discourse relies on assumptions. The higher-level the discourse, the more assumptions are necessary. Inevitably some are going to be wrong. That doesn't make the issues personal.

If you want impersonal debates, stop conflating fair attacks on your theses and tactics with personal grievances. Lately I can't seem to say two words to you in any thread where you're heavily embattled without you digressing from the topic at hand to accuse me of "badgering" you, and then refusing to address my criticisms.

Case in point: Reply #10. The first paragraph is a rhetorical question. The second summarizes where we last left the argument, providing links for clarification. The third is supplemental. The fourth is a conclusion summarizing the reasoning behind my skepticism in the first. There's nothing personal in any of these.

I've told you in the past, if my sustained criticism upsets you, which includes i) assumptions that may be incorrect, ii) criticisms of the form "what you're saying now isn't what you said then", iii) criticisms of the form "your belief that [...] is not reasonable", and iv) criticisms of the form "you're being evasive" or "that isn't an answer to my question", then put me on ignore. If you expect your replies to my criticisms to be automatically accepted by me without further rebuttals or criticisms, put me on ignore.

If you clearly state "I don't have enough time to debate that." or "Let's agree to disagree.", I'll respect that. Otherwise you're going to get "badgering", because "badgering" is in fact sustained adversarial inquiry, which is the sine qua non of any forum for debate.

what i mean by personal is this constant use of the word YOU in your posts.  go back to post (10) and tell me: how many times does your post say YOU?  i bet it is at least 10x, without looking.  reading through that post, i feel like i am getting interrogated.  but moreover, what difference does it make about ME?  who gives a crap?  nobody here, that is for sure.  so, why you are constantly asking about ME is beyond me, but it also feels very personal to me.

and i explained why i didn't respond today to your six steps post.  i came up with a response at home this morning, but i left it in note form next to the computer.

and no, what i call badgering is jumping to a conclusion, ie, "dj is being evasive", and then acting RELENTLESSLY on that assumption, without EVER CHECKING IT.  that is what i call badgering, Virgil.  what do YOU call badgering?  and how the hell am i supposed to know WHY YOU ARE BADGERING ME?  i am not a mind reader.  why is it MY RESPONSIBILITY to ask you "why are you badgering me"?  why don't YOU check YOUR assumptions first, before you even start?  that would save us both a lot of typing.

i have plenty of time to debate.  what i don't have time for is to re-analyze arguments i have already made.

good night.  i have band practice in an hour, and a high paying gig tomorrow, so a lot to do before then.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 11, 2015 19:54:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what i mean by personal is this constant use of the word YOU in your posts.  go back to post (10) and tell me: how many times does your post say YOU?  i bet it is at least 10x, without looking.  reading through that post, i feel like i am getting interrogated.  but moreover, what difference does it make about ME?  who gives a crap?  nobody here, that is for sure.  so, why you are constantly asking about ME is beyond me, but it also feels very personal to me.

and i explained why i didn't respond today to your six steps post.  i came up with a response at home this morning, but i left it in note form next to the computer.

and no, what i call badgering is jumping to a conclusion, ie, "dj is being evasive", and then acting RELENTLESSLY on that assumption, without EVER CHECKING IT.  that is what i call badgering, Virgil.  what do YOU call badgering?  and how the hell am i supposed to know WHY YOU ARE BADGERING ME?  i am not a mind reader.  why is it MY RESPONSIBILITY to ask you "why are you badgering me"?  why don't YOU check YOUR assumptions first, before you even start?  that would save us both a lot of typing.

i have plenty of time to debate.  what i don't have time for is to re-analyze arguments i have already made.

good night.  i have band practice in an hour, and a high paying gig tomorrow, so a lot to do before then.

There are literally hundreds of assumptions I'd have to check. I realistically cannot check even a modest fraction of the assumptions underlying one of your lengthier posts.

"Badgering" is persisting in a line of inquiry even after the subject being questioned (i.e. you) has both i) conceded that he either cannot or will not answer, and ii) not invalidated his concession by including a clause that provokes further questioning (otherwise known as a parting shot), e.g. "...because I've already answered that" (when a question hasn't been answered), "...because I don't argue with racists" (when no racist arguments have been made), "...because you're not being fair" (when questioning has been fair), "...because you're grasping at straws" (when arguments are relevant), etc.

Consider: if you attempt to abort a line of inquiry with "I'm DON'T believe government is perfect, Virgil, and I wish you'd stop treating me as though I do.", this is not a concession. This is a provocation that says to me: "Virgil, your criticism clearly implies that I believe government is perfect." or else "Virgil, your criticism of my position makes no sense unless you believe I think government is perfect."  Since neither of these implications is true, I may well extend the line of inquiry, wanting to set the record straight.

A valid is concession is "I don't understand what you're saying, Virgil, and I don't want to debate the issue further."

Another example: "I'm not going to respond to this because it will take us into territory we've covered before."

A third: "I don't have time to point out everything wrong with Reply #1234. We fundamentally disagree that [...]. There's no point in discussing it further."

You'll note that in such cases, I'm diligent to steer onto new topics or else abort the line of inquiry entirely. If I don't, it's likely because I didn't consider your post to be a concession. You can either restate it or else ignore me, and I'll get the point.

If you include a rebuttal, it is not a concession. If you include a parting shot, it is not a concession.

Not a concession: "I don't understand what you're saying, Virgil, and I don't want to debate the issue further. Syrians are peace-loving people, no matter what you say."

Not a concession: "I'm not going to respond to this because it will take us into territory we've covered before. You always assume the government is incompetent and you can never prove it."

Not a concession: "You should really read Syria: The Misunderstood Paradise by P. Soffe, Virgil.  I don't have time to point out everything wrong with Reply #1234. Argument over."

Finally, in case it isn't obvious, everything I've said thus far presumes that it is indeed your responsibility to concede if you want a line of inquiry to end. Accordingly, if I don't want you grilling me on the things I say on the board, it's my responsibility to bow out of the argument without any parting shots. That's the way it works.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 11, 2015 21:27:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 11, 2015 19:54:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what i mean by personal is this constant use of the word YOU in your posts.  go back to post (10) and tell me: how many times does your post say YOU?  i bet it is at least 10x, without looking.  reading through that post, i feel like i am getting interrogated.  but moreover, what difference does it make about ME?  who gives a crap?  nobody here, that is for sure.  so, why you are constantly asking about ME is beyond me, but it also feels very personal to me.

and i explained why i didn't respond today to your six steps post.  i came up with a response at home this morning, but i left it in note form next to the computer.

and no, what i call badgering is jumping to a conclusion, ie, "dj is being evasive", and then acting RELENTLESSLY on that assumption, without EVER CHECKING IT.  that is what i call badgering, Virgil.  what do YOU call badgering?  and how the hell am i supposed to know WHY YOU ARE BADGERING ME?  i am not a mind reader.  why is it MY RESPONSIBILITY to ask you "why are you badgering me"?  why don't YOU check YOUR assumptions first, before you even start?  that would save us both a lot of typing.

i have plenty of time to debate.  what i don't have time for is to re-analyze arguments i have already made.

good night.  i have band practice in an hour, and a high paying gig tomorrow, so a lot to do before then.

There are literally hundreds of assumptions I'd have to check. I realistically cannot check even a modest fraction of the assumptions underlying one of your lengthier posts.

"Badgering" is persisting in a line of inquiry even after the subject being questioned (i.e. you) has both i) conceded that he either cannot or will not answer, and ii) not invalidated his concession by including a clause that provokes further questioning (otherwise known as a parting shot), e.g. "...because I've already answered that" (when a question hasn't been answered), "...because I don't argue with racists" (when no racist arguments have been made), "...because you're not being fair" (when questioning has been fair), "...because you're grasping at straws" (when arguments are relevant), etc.

Consider: if you attempt to abort a line of inquiry with "I'm DON'T believe government is perfect, Virgil, and I wish you'd stop treating me as though I do.", this is not a concession. This is a provocation that says to me: "Virgil, your criticism clearly implies that I believe government is perfect." or else "Virgil, your criticism of my position makes no sense unless you believe I think government is perfect."  Since neither of these implications is true, I may well extend the line of inquiry, wanting to set the record straight.

A valid is concession is "I don't understand what you're saying, Virgil, and I don't want to debate the issue further."

Another example: "I'm not going to respond to this because it will take us into territory we've covered before."

A third: "I don't have time to point out everything wrong with Reply #1234. We fundamentally disagree that [...]. There's no point in discussing it further."

You'll note that in such cases, I'm diligent to steer onto new topics or else abort the line of inquiry entirely. If I don't, it's likely because I didn't consider your post to be a concession. You can either restate it or else ignore me, and I'll get the point.

If you include a rebuttal, it is not a concession. If you include a parting shot, it is not a concession.

Not a concession: "I don't understand what you're saying, Virgil, and I don't want to debate the issue further. Syrians are peace-loving people, no matter what you say."

Not a concession: "I'm not going to respond to this because it will take us into territory we've covered before. You always assume the government is incompetent and you can never prove it."

Not a concession: "You should really read Syria: The Misunderstood Paradise by P. Soffe, Virgil.  I don't have time to point out everything wrong with Reply #1234. Argument over."

Finally, in case it isn't obvious, everything I've said thus far presumes that it is indeed your responsibility to concede if you want a line of inquiry to end. Accordingly, if I don't want you grilling me on the things I say on the board, it's my responsibility to bow out of the argument without any parting shots. That's the way it works.

edit: i wasn't suggesting that you not check MY assumptions.  just the opposite.  i was suggesting you check YOURS.  if that is so time consuming that you would never have time to post, i can't imagine how that would be a bad outcome for anyone here.

the rest of this is all about me and our relationship and "concessions", which i don't remember even mentioning.  i read it.  i have no response, and i won't have any in the future.  stick to the subject and off me, and we will be fine.


Shabbat Shalom.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 13, 2015 8:27:40 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I must say that I am astounded that dj offered to house a refugee family in response to a challenge to his political commitment to the issue on this board, all the more so given that his house is not large enough to do so comfortably in the manner to which we are accustomed.

There is an old political canard that: if one feels so strongly about an issue they should take it on themselves to solve it rather than relying on the government to do so. What they fail to differentiate is the difference between a personal issue and a societal issue.  There are many things that need to be resolved that can only be done by the community, rather than individually.  In fact, these things should be done by the community rather than the individual.  Military defense, power transmission, insurance, pandemic quarantine are all disparate examples of some of the many things that should be done by the community, public and/ or private.

"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade."  I took that seriously, and tried to build a rocket.  But I was like six (and this was several years after the speech)  It is ridiculous to assume an individual can or will take on such a task.  Most adults I knew stuck to bomb shelters.

While housing refugees makes some sense in an acute emergency situation such as that faced by Germany, it makes no sense in the case of the United States, where we are talking about the slow, orderly admission of 10,000 people into a country of 340 million.   People may wish to step up and offer their help, and even their homes to go beyond their civic duty and help these poor waifs.  But one should certainly not feel compelled to, unless they are family. 

We're considering three fundamentally different types of social projects: 1. infrastructure projects, 2. projects for the glory and advancement of society, 3. humanitarian projects

Most westerners agree that infrastructure projects should be collective undertakings (i.e. constitute "societal issues", as you put it). The utility of the projects is obvious, the up-front capital costs are high, and the benefits are shared collectively by all. This class of projects also includes social welfare projects, mainly due to the collective penalties paid for not "dealing with" destitute citizens.

Projects for the glory and advancement of society, which include the US moon landing, are more contentious. The utility of the projects isn't as obvious, especially in cases of supporting of the arts, funding lavish galas for national leaders, erecting national monuments, etc. Even so, citizens are willing to tolerate modest government spending on such projects because they (we) acknowledge that the capital costs are high, the projects are expected to add to the glory and prestige of our societies, and the projects typically benefit the collective.

Humanitarian projects for foreigners are another beast entirely. They're elective. They offer no benefit to the citizens paying for them, and in many cases (including resettling the Syrian refugees) they constitute an added burden by saddling taxpayers with additional risks, inconveniences, and expenses. They don't advance the glory or prestige of society. Perhaps most importantly, they don't have high up-front capital costs. They aren't monolithic undertakings like a space shuttle or supercollider. An NGO with a few boots on the ground and a few thousand dollars in the bank can still provide remarkably effective humanitarian aid.

In short, all of the qualities that make classes (1) and (2) good candidates for collective funding (necessity, benefit to the taxpayer, benefit to the society, high capital costs) are not present for class (3). We might even go so far as to say that government taxation for the purposes of foreign humanitarian support is immoral, depriving citizens of discretionary income to support the causes and projects (including foreign aid) as they see fit. In the event that government has to borrow money, I state without qualification that funding of class-(3) projects is grossly immoral, excepting cases where the debt is immediately repaid.

If individual citizens like DJ have the means and desire to help foreigners resettle, this is a good and noble sentiment, and I wholeheartedly approve of it. But the decision must be theirs, the charity must be theirs, and the money invested must be theirs. They mustn't compromise their own financial situation or that of anyone else. The government has no moral authority to make such decisions on their behalf, even if the government has usurped the legal authority to do so over the decades.

With DJ being as classically liberal as he is, I suspect he recognizes and respects this fact, which was why he (commendably) volunteered to put his money where his mouth is rather than hiding behind the rationalizations you just brought up.

My props to him.

[Virgil Showlion]

You contradict yourself.

Is taking in these Syrian refugees "a diplomatic effort to 'do our share' and shoulder a small part of the burden of this problem, in order to keep together the coalition that is trying to deal with this issue" or is it "one of our great sources of strength"?

Suppose it's the former, and I agree it is. You're claiming that resettling the Syrian refugees isn't a humanitarian effort. Hence what "problem" is the US helping to solve, and how does solving it benefit US citizens?

If it's the latter, how do you justify equating general immigration and refugee resettlement? Immigrants come here with a desire to assimilate, they're afforded no exceptional support by the US government, and they're awarded citizenship only on a provisional basis. Refugees come here because nobody else wants them. They have little or no desire to assimilate, they're afforded considerable support by the US government, and they're guaranteed citizenship.

I assure you that if all immigration entailed the sacrifices of refugee resettlement, taxpayer funded immigration most definitely wouldn't have been "the policy and tradition of the USA since before our government was even instituted". No sensible majority wants to pay money to bring dead weight into their country, and that's precisely what's happening. If the minority want to support it for humanitarian reasons (or as part of a "diplomatic effort" or whatever you want to call it), they're welcome to do so on their own dime.

[Virgil Showlion]

Now you're just quibbling over the definition of "refugee".

Tell me: what was the name of the government refugee program under which the Puritans, Irish, and Armenians were afforded lodging, medical care, and living expenses for several years?

I always thought these people had been more-or-less self-sustaining. Dropped into America sink or swim, left to the charity of individuals. But obviously that isn't the case. Why else would you be bringing them up to justify your position that government should pay for the Syrian refugees?

I'll do the research myself. Just give me the name of the specific program or programs the US government used to transport, feed, clothe, and shelter these wretched masses, and I'll do the rest.

ETA: Also, I'd appreciate an answer to my previous question: What non-humanitarian problem is the US solving by resettling these refugees, and how does solving the problem benefit Americans?

[Virgil Showlion]

It's perfectly acceptable--commendable, even--if individuals offer "help from their own community, charity and limited aid where they can find it". My point is that this help and aid must be offered by the citizenry or else solicited by the government on a voluntary basis. The government has no moral right to transport, feed, shelter, and clothe foreign refugees on citizens' behalf. The government has no moral right to borrow money, further compromising a nation's financial position, in order to undertake such projects.

The fact that government now has the legal authority to tax citizens to facilitate the lives of refugees (i.e. the "public help" you mention) is irrelevant. It has overstepped its bounds. Ordinarily I'd call it "robbing the rich to pay for the poor", but western nations are hardly rich anymore. Here we're witnessing government robbing the broke to pay for the poor.

I know you and others think the party is going to keep right on going until the end of time, a few tweaks here, a few sacrifices there, but mark my words: sooner or later reality is going to hit us like a two-by-four. We're going to deeply regret this.