Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
"If it saves one life"
  Previous  1  2  3   9  10  11  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

  Jeanette  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:47 pm
Fox wrote:
Comparing a travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim countries -- even if it had the effect of religious discrimination -- with a "ban on Muslims" has got to be one of the most dishonest things I've heard.

Of course, the irony is that most of those countries once had vibrant non-Muslim populations. Gosh, I wonder what happened to all those people?


Do you not find it even slightly disingenuous when the president made a campaign issue out of banning Muslims and now being full of righteous indignation that anyone could dare call it a Muslim ban?
Back to top

  Fox  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:48 pm
WhatFor wrote:
Again, read the decision issued today by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read it. Nowhere does it talk about "bans on Muslims." It describes a policy as having a base in religious animus. That is debatable, but it is clearly different than a "ban."

Please cite federal, state, or local statutes that show that the practice of Islam is illegal or that individuals practicing Islam are to be prosecuted, which is what a ban would mean.
Back to top

  HappyGoLucky1  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:53 pm
Trump himself is the one who called it a Muslim ban. Repeatedly. Then denied it after deleting his tweet after everybody slammed it.
Back to top

LittleDucky  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 2:09 pm
shoshanim999 wrote:
ok, then I agree they should be banned.


There is nothing about an AR 15 that makes them any more dangerous than ordinary hunting rifles. The insides are the same- they were just made to look like an m16. No real significant difference on the mechanics. By saying they should be banned means anything that looks scary should be banned. Starting with those clown costumes.
Back to top

  Jeanette  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 2:37 pm
LittleDucky wrote:
There is nothing about an AR 15 that makes them any more dangerous than ordinary hunting rifles. The insides are the same- they were just made to look like an m16. No real significant difference on the mechanics. By saying they should be banned means anything that looks scary should be banned. Starting with those clown costumes.


If clown costumes had the power to kill dozens of people in minutes, then yes, I'd be all for banning clown costumes.

I'm no gun expert but this article does a good job of explaining why the AR 15 is deadlier than a common hunting rifle.


https://www.nbcnews.com/think/.....48346

Quote:
The AR-15 is, by design, easier to shoot accurately and rapidly than a a typical hunting rifle because it mitigates recoil. The standard AR-15 bullet, as previously stated, carries kinetic energy of 1300 foot pounds; a typical hunting rifle bullet has between 2600 and 4000 foot pounds, meaning it has greater recoil. The excessive recoil of a hunting rifle precludes rapid firing on target, because of the obligatory motion of the gun and its impact on the shooter. But the moderate energy of the AR-15 allows shooting on target literally as rapidly as the trigger can be pulled, while providing ample bullet speed to inflict lethal wounds.
Back to top

  WhatFor  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 2:43 pm
Fox wrote:
Read it. Nowhere does it talk about "bans on Muslims." It describes a policy as having a base in religious animus. That is debatable, but it is clearly different than a "ban."

Please cite federal, state, or local statutes that show that the practice of Islam is illegal or that individuals practicing Islam are to be prosecuted, which is what a ban would mean.


It does talk about Trump's "proposals to ban Muslims from entering the US".

When people talk about the "Muslim ban" they're talking about the travel ban directed at Muslims. No one means that the president is banning Muslims from practicing in the United States. This is generally common knowledge, but it's okay if you didn't understand that. Hope that clarifies things for you.

You also say that it is "debatable" whether the policy has a base in religious animus. The Court if Appeal writes: "The president also continued to express what any reasonable observer could view as anti- Muslim bias." I would argue then, that it's hardly debatable, as it is very difficult to debate with an unreasonable person.

Here are more quotes from the opinion regarding whether the travel ban was directed at Muslims.







But this thread has nothing to do with Trump's stated intention to ban Muslims. People only raised that as an example of how the administration is able to take action when something truly bothers them, and yet they are taking no action on gun control.
Back to top

  Fox  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 3:18 pm
WhatFor wrote:
When people talk about the "Muslim ban" they're talking about the travel ban directed at Muslims. No one means that the president is banning Muslims from practicing in the United States. This is generally common knowledge, but it's okay if you didn't understand that. Hope that clarifies things for you.

Yes, I realize that's what they're talking about. They are doing it to conflate reasonable caution with senseless bigotry.

Calling a "travel ban" a "Muslim ban" suggests all sorts of things that are not included in a travel ban, and the people who use this terminology are fully aware of it. Fortunately, all of us are able to read Rules for Radicals, and we're perfectly aware of the sleight of hand.

Just out of curiosity, did all these people whose consensus constitutes "common knowledge" refer to it as a "Russian ban" when President Obama issued a travel ban against Ukrainians with alleged ties to Russia? Because somehow I don't recall that . . .
Back to top

  SixOfWands  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 3:28 pm
Fox wrote:
Yes, I realize that's what they're talking about. They are doing it to conflate reasonable caution with senseless bigotry.

Calling a "travel ban" a "Muslim ban" suggests all sorts of things that are not included in a travel ban, and the people who use this terminology are fully aware of it. Fortunately, all of us are able to read Rules for Radicals, and we're perfectly aware of the sleight of hand.

Just out of curiosity, did all these people whose consensus constitutes "common knowledge" refer to it as a "Russian ban" when President Obama issued a travel ban against Ukrainians with alleged ties to Russia? Because somehow I don't recall that . . .


The day after the San Bernardino shootings, Trump's team issued a statement about his proposal, ""Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." He tweaked that a bit in his acceptance speech, ""We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place." Did that mean the same thing, Chuck Todd asked? "I actually don't think it's a rollback. In fact, you could say it's an expansion. I'm looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can't use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I'm okay with that, because I'm talking territory instead of Muslim."

There is little question as to what Trump is doing. He said it himself. He -- and you -- are just trying to use semantics to get around it.
Back to top

  WhatFor  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 3:37 pm
Fox wrote:
Yes, I realize that's what they're talking about. They are doing it to conflate reasonable caution with senseless bigotry.

Calling a "travel ban" a "Muslim ban" suggests all sorts of things that are not included in a travel ban, and the people who use this terminology are fully aware of it. Fortunately, all of us are able to read Rules for Radicals, and we're perfectly aware of the sleight of hand.

Just out of curiosity, did all these people whose consensus constitutes "common knowledge" refer to it as a "Russian ban" when President Obama issued a travel ban against Ukrainians with alleged ties to Russia? Because somehow I don't recall that . . .


The person who started to use the term "Muslim ban" was Trump. You do realize that, right?

By "all these people " are you referring to the 9 justices of the Appeals Court who published that opinion? (The Chief Justice who actually authored the opinion was appointed by George W Bush.)

Oh no! It seems like despite having spent their careers in studying logic and reason, they were fooled by a "sleight of hand"! Why don't you send them that book so they can figure out how to think reasonably!

The only "sleight of hand" I see here is you trying to deflect the conversation to from talking about gun control to talking about the travel ban, and then when that deflection doesn't seem to be working out, you're trying to change the conversation to talk about a different president taking different action that also has nothing to do with the original topic.

Sleight of hand indeed.

To those still following what the original purpose of this thread was: is it worth it to impose some measure of gun control to save a single life?
Back to top

  Jeanette  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 3:38 pm
Does knowing that at least five of the victims were Jewish change anything? Does it add urgency to do something to save "just one life"? Are some lives worth more than others?
Back to top

  HappyGoLucky1




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 3:50 pm
I think it makes it much closer to home and relatable that there were Jewish victims. But I'd stand with a life is a life regardless. Nobody should have to die in such a gruesome way.
That being said the reality is that it's a losing battle either way. Politics are the worst. Sadly, the priority will always be about the money, even if it means life comes second.
We see it everywhere. Look at our schools for example. How many kids get shamed and thrown out of school because they can't catch up with their tuition. Life is run as a business, morals have gone out the window. It's sad.
Back to top

  Fox  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:09 pm
When the sarcasm gets this thick on Twitter, Christina Hoff Sommers usually tells people they need a nap.

Of course I remember Trump's campaign shtick about a Muslim ban. But you're all a little confused. We're not talking about Trump. We're talking about actual policies in place. And whether Trump would support one or not, there is no ban on Muslims.

Arguing that, "Well, Trump would like to ban Muslims!" is like my claiming that I wear a size 2 because I would like to lose weight. So? I'm not gonna fit into a size 2 no matter how much I would like to lose weight, and it would be a waste of time to shop for size 2 clothes.

Claiming that I took the thread on a tangent is silly. I simply responded to someone else who noticed that there is no actual ban on Muslims.

As for the problem of school shootings, being outraged about something does not make you virtuous. In fact, I find it a little off-putting that so many people are so upset over a school shooting while at the same time shrugging at the homicide rates in Chicago and Baltimore. So far this year, Chicago has had 52 homicides, and that doesn't count those in nearby suburbs.

Everyone goes merrily about her business, thinking up cute Purim ideas, until a shooting targets primarily white, middle-class students. Then, all of a sudden, you're outraged.

Do some lives matter more than others? You tell me.
Back to top

alis_al_kulana  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:18 pm
Armed guards would effectively prevent school shootings and provide jobs for veterans.
Back to top

  WhatFor  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:20 pm
alis_al_kulana wrote:
Armed guards would effectively prevent school shootings and provide jobs for veterans.


There was an armed guard at the school.
Back to top

  SixOfWands  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:22 pm
Fox wrote:
When the sarcasm gets this thick on Twitter, Christina Hoff Sommers usually tells people they need a nap.

Of course I remember Trump's campaign shtick about a Muslim ban. But you're all a little confused. We're not talking about Trump. We're talking about actual policies in place. And whether Trump would support one or not, there is no ban on Muslims.

Arguing that, "Well, Trump would like to ban Muslims!" is like my claiming that I wear a size 2 because I would like to lose weight. So? I'm not gonna fit into a size 2 no matter how much I would like to lose weight, and it would be a waste of time to shop for size 2 clothes.

Claiming that I took the thread on a tangent is silly. I simply responded to someone else who noticed that there is no actual ban on Muslims.

As for the problem of school shootings, being outraged about something does not make you virtuous. In fact, I find it a little off-putting that so many people are so upset over a school shooting while at the same time shrugging at the homicide rates in Chicago and Baltimore. So far this year, Chicago has had 52 homicides, and that doesn't count those in nearby suburbs.

Everyone goes merrily about her business, thinking up cute Purim ideas, until a shooting targets primarily white, middle-class students. Then, all of a sudden, you're outraged.

Do some lives matter more than others? You tell me.


The only one being snarky, sarcastic and disingenuous is you. (Of course, since that's the MO of Christina Sommers Hoff, its not surprise.)

Trump said he wanted a Muslim ban. Then when someone reminded him that even he is subject to the Constitution, he instituted the same policy under a different name. Racism and religious persecution is not a "shtick."

Some of us are upset and outraged by ALL shootings. Although we're very glad to see that the murder rate in Chicago is starting to decline (and has actually declined for 11 straight months -- although that's still not good enough). Are the guns they're using manufactured by Mexican cartels? Because otherwise, they originated from a legal gun source, and stricter gun controls will eventually help. Oh wait. I can help. The 2017 Gun Trace Report released in October showed that nearly a quarter of the guns recovered in Chicago were sold by just ten federally licensed firearms dealers (seven in Illinois and three in northwest Indiana).
Back to top

  Jeanette  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:38 pm
Fox wrote:
When the sarcasm gets this thick on Twitter, Christina Hoff Sommers usually tells people they need a nap.

Of course I remember Trump's campaign shtick about a Muslim ban. But you're all a little confused. We're not talking about Trump. We're talking about actual policies in place. And whether Trump would support one or not, there is no ban on Muslims.

Arguing that, "Well, Trump would like to ban Muslims!" is like my claiming that I wear a size 2 because I would like to lose weight. So? I'm not gonna fit into a size 2 no matter how much I would like to lose weight, and it would be a waste of time to shop for size 2 clothes.

Claiming that I took the thread on a tangent is silly. I simply responded to someone else who noticed that there is no actual ban on Muslims.

As for the problem of school shootings, being outraged about something does not make you virtuous. In fact, I find it a little off-putting that so many people are so upset over a school shooting while at the same time shrugging at the homicide rates in Chicago and Baltimore. So far this year, Chicago has had 52 homicides, and that doesn't count those in nearby suburbs.

Everyone goes merrily about her business, thinking up cute Purim ideas, until a shooting targets primarily white, middle-class students. Then, all of a sudden, you're outraged.

Do some lives matter more than others? You tell me.


First of all you can stop policing people's sarcasm levels. We're big girls here who can dish it out as well as take it.

I am so done with the argument that what Trump says doesnt matter. Yeah, we know most of the country considers him a fake president who spends most of his day executive timing while others run the country. Yeah, we know he's demonstrated little interest or curiosity about learning the job or actually doing it. But the fact is he's the president, he has the powers of the office and his words matter. His rhetoric matters. His demonization of outside groups matters.

But it's super cute that you are tacitly acknowledging that we're all better off just sidelining Trump.

Yes, gun violence in Chicago is a problem and nobody is denying that. What's asinine is using that as an excuse to avoid taking action on a different problem for which solutions exist. It's like saying until we cure cancer we should do nothing about flu.
Back to top

  WhatFor  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:45 pm
Fox wrote:
When the sarcasm gets this thick on Twitter, Christina Hoff Sommers usually tells people they need a nap. me.


(Comments on tone of posts and makes reference to obscure person instead of addressing substance of posts. )


Fox wrote:
Of course I remember Trump's campaign shtick about a Muslim ban.
(Recovers from temporary amnesia after previously professing to have no idea what Muslim ban anyone was talking about)

Fox wrote:
But you're all a little confused. We're not talking about Trump. We're talking about actual policies in place. And whether Trump would support one or not, there is no ban on Muslims.


(Exhibits lack of understand of thread objective, which concerns the value of hypothetical future solutions and not policies already in place.)

Fox wrote:

Arguing that, "Well, Trump would like to ban Muslims!" is like my claiming that I wear a size 2 because I would like to lose weight. So? I'm not gonna fit into a size 2 no matter how much I would like to lose weight, and it would be a waste of time to shop for size 2 clothes.

Claiming that I took the thread on a tangent is silly. I simply responded to someone else who noticed that there is no actual ban on Muslims.


(Exhibits lack of understanding of why "Muslim ban" issue was raised in the first place, which was to show that when the administration is bothered by an issue, it wastes no time in attempting to take action. Blames posts on other poster.)

Fox wrote:

As for the problem of school shootings, being outraged about something does not make you virtuous. In fact, I find it a little off-putting that so many people are so upset over a school shooting while at the same time shrugging at the homicide rates in Chicago and Baltimore. So far this year, Chicago has had 52 homicides, and that doesn't count those in nearby suburbs.

Everyone goes merrily about her business, thinking up cute Purim ideas, until a shooting targets primarily white, middle-class students. Then, all of a sudden, you're outraged.


(Tries to minimize legitimate outrage of posters over unnecessary loss of life within country and community by insinuating that outrage is attempt at appearing virtuous. Raises other issues relating to gun control and argues offended that not enough attention is paid to those issues, despite the fact that objective of thread could easily be referencing those issues and that response is to poster who has repeatedly posted about gun violence issues generally, and within the last couple of days has posted about such issues generally.)

Fox wrote:

Do some lives matter more than others? You tell me.


(Concludes with highly politicized quote which is generally unrelated to topic at hand but may succeed in offending some posters on either side of the aisle.)
Back to top

Deep  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:53 pm
Here's Piers Morgan's description of a conversation he had with President Trump discussing gun control.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new......html

I can't believe I'm quoting Piers, I'm most definitely not a fan. But the conversation illustrates how absolutely illogical and insane the status quo on guns truly is.
Back to top

  Fox  




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 5:06 pm
Jeanette wrote:
First of all you can stop policing people's sarcasm levels. We're big girls here who can dish it out as well as take it.

I'm not policing it, I'm laughing at it and enjoying it. I consider it an excellent sign when people respond with anger, sarcasm, and personal attacks, because it means that's all they've got.

Of course, I have to protest calling Christina Hoff Sommers "an obscure person." Based Mom, an obscure person? C'mon! We gotta have some standards! Very Happy
Back to top

  alis_al_kulana




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 15 2018, 5:06 pm
There was no armed guard. There was a policeman but he couldn't be found. They had an unarmed guard who died protecting kids
Back to top
Page 2 of 11   Previous  1  2  3   9  10  11  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
SHOPPERS BEWARE! I was charged 2X for one supermarket shop!
by amother
58 Yesterday at 9:32 am View last post
How do you say "boo-boo" in Yiddish?
by amother
6 Thu, Jan 09 2025, 12:45 pm View last post
One night get away
by amother
11 Wed, Jan 08 2025, 1:13 pm View last post
What makes music "Jewish"? 37 Wed, Jan 08 2025, 10:21 am View last post
Lack of life enrichment activities
by amother
5 Tue, Jan 07 2025, 7:34 pm View last post
by zaq