In the spirit of overreacting out there I have two related suggestions.
1. Since a tiny percentage of inanimate objects get used by people to do horrible things we should indiscriminately ban the 99.9% of those inanimate objects.
2. Since I tiny percentage of men engage in acts which sexually demean, assault, harass, or rape women as well as young children of both genders, we should engage in punitive action against the overwhelmingly large percentage of men who don’t engage in those acts. Further should ignore the men who are actively engaged in preventing these acts and punishing these horrific people who engage in them. Perhaps all men should be lulled of, or restricted in Somme reasonable way.
Perhaps the answer is for those of us in the 99% of men should just identify as one of the unlimited gender options available to us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Hey, we have agreement, it appears. You and I agree that we ought not penalize a larger group of people because some tiny minority within that group has misbehaved... Am I correct that we agree?
Knee-jerk reactions never satisfy. But they are easier than exerting the effort to find a real solution.
Dan,
What large group of people are being penalized for the misbehavior of a minority?
I've always said that we need to treat people as individuals and not as an inseparable part of some larger group. That's to point of the post, to point out the idiocy of engaging in some mass overreaction to the actions of a tiny minority.
Art,
One example, is Feo's demand that various types of firearms be banned. Clearly, bu any objective standard, such an action would be inflicting a penalty on the 99.9% of people who are law abiding gun owners. Or, for example, to suggest that we engage in a wholesale effort to stop electing persons of a certain group to public office based on the actions of a tiny minority.
It's this sort of group identity politics that is both simplistic and pointless. It's a failure to understand that our justice system is not set up to prevent crime, as much as to punish crime.
Ultimately, you're correct in identifying this urge to ban all of one particular group or to broad brush is just an easy, emotion driven, knee jerk reaction.
So, what of Muslim bans? Of bans on people coming into this country because of what a tiny minority MIGHT do? You're consistent and opposed to that?
I agree that idiocy of engaging in some mass overreaction to the actions of a few Muslims is uncalled for and I would go further and say that such actions un-Christian and un-American.
I’ve never, ever, ever, not one time, ever even hinted that a blanket ban on all Muslims entering the US is an appropriate policy. Of course, neither has anyone else.
But, damn, you’re kicking straw man ass recently.
What I said, again...
what of Muslim bans?
Of bans on people coming into this country because of what a tiny minority MIGHT do?
You're consistent and opposed to that?
As a point of fact in the real world of reality, someone HAS done that exactly. Someone (Trump) HAS banned people from a number of countries (not coincidentally Muslim countries, by and large) because of what some tiny minority MIGHT do.
Are you opposed to the "temporary" ban on certain nations that Trump has created?
No straw man. I'm dealing with reality, real policies (and I'm willing to set aside the reality that these bans are, in effect, Muslim bans - at least temporarily - to get to the point of your post) that penalize a large swath of people based on what some tiny minority might do. You opposed to it?
even hinted that a blanket ban on all Muslims entering the US is an appropriate policy. Of course, neither has anyone else.
Are you really delusional enough to believe this? Given that Trump asked for people to give him a way to ban Muslims?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/31/is-this-a-muslim-ban-look-at-the-history-and-at-trumps-own-words/?utm_term=.60df000c18c4
Why are you so willing to give this predatory pervert oppressor creep the benefit of the doubt? Especially when his actions cause harm to the poor and marginalized? Indeed, given your point in this post, WHY do you keep defending the one who would penalize the majority based on the feared actions of a tiny minority?
I love it when you get all medieval on some unsuspecting straw man. In this case your own words undercut your point.
Trump had enacted restrictions (not a ban) on all citizens (of any religion) from a limited number of countries for a limited period of time in order to revamp the screening process.
I know that there’s a school of thought that says that repeating a lie often enough makes it the truth.
Yes, I would be opposed to an actual permanent ban based 100% on religious affiliation, if there was such a thing in actuality, but as you point out, something that is “in effect”, a Muslim ban is not in actuality a Muslim ban.
But, I just realized what your doing. I’m done Enabling your mania to turn every conversation into a conversation about Trump. I am so, either stay on topic, or don’t complain when your comments start to go away.
If you can provide a link to any official government document (bill, law, executive order) which is actually in effect. Which uses the term “Muslim ban” or language that specifically and permanent bans all Muslims, only Muslims, specifically because they’re Muslim, in perpetuity this would be a good time to do so.
Please read the above before you comment again.
Please avoid making judgments about what I do or don’t support. Especially pay attention to what I’ve actually written and to the fact that pointing out reality doesn’t mean support. You might also want to look at where you quite clearly agreed that there was no Muslim ban.
Perhaps answering the following questions might help?
Is there any law or executive order that prevents all Muslims from entering the US?
Is there any law that specifically establishes that the Muslim religion is the primary factor in preventing anyone from immigrating?
Will non Muslims from the few countries identified be permitted to immigrate?
Post a Comment