Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

National Values and the Cost-Benefit Analysis.



Rancid carnival barker and all-around POS Donald Trump has proposed that we bar entry to the U.S. of all Muslims. This is clearly a garbage policy from a garbage human being, unworthy of consideration. 

However, there is one thing that can be said for it: had we been doing it a year ago, Tashfeen Malik, the murderous jihadi sow who abused our hospitality and came to our country to slaughter us, would not have been able to do so. It is--however odious--the only proposal that would have definitively prevented the slaughter, or at least lessened it. If she hadn't been here, she wouldn't have murdered anyone.

Nevertheless, many of us oppose Trump's cynical, atrocious ploy (self included). At a minimum, it stabs in the back those Muslims who have helped us and would pay the price if they were left in their homelands. When you have a moral debt, you pay it. Period.

Beyond that, some have invoked higher ideals, arguing that it would offend our sense of who we are as a nation to implement it--that, despite the risks, we would be killing something that makes us different, betraying who we are. Sure, some will probably turn on us and kill us, as did the sow--but the alternative is worse.

I can respect that.

So stop talking about wanting to "do something" about my firearms.

7 comments:

  1. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/134791529391/risk-management-trump-persuasion-series

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems quite a sensible policy given the nearly 14 century praxis of that false religion.

    Mahometanism scimitars up the world into areas of peace and areas of war and America is in the area of war and so it makes little sense to invite our moral enemies into the area of war.

    As to your observation that sure, some will probably turn on us and kill us How many deaths per year are worth the price of whatever it is that would not be a worse alternative?

    I am no simply being argumentative, I am really curious

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good question. I'm not in favor of unlimited immigration--note the favoring of Muslims who have helped us, for starters. And I have no idea why we would admit certain types of Muslims who are more likely to be trouble--Wahhabis, Salafis. There should be a flat bar there, as we used to do with Communists.

    But since it's a statistical certainty that a number of non-Muslim immigrants will also resort to criminality, perhaps we could do some statistical research comparing various immigrant groups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Price. What you have to say is listened closely to by many owing to your intellect and industry and so that is the momentum behind the question.

      ABS is in general agreement with Trump's ban on the lot of them for mahometans are unassimilable in the west and there are way too many Catholic Prophecies identifying the ineluctable consequences of them moving into the west. prophecies like civil wars in Italy, France, England, and Germany (see Desmond A Birch's, "Trial, Tribulation + Triumph..." but you are far better read and far more thoughtful than is ABS.

      No false modesty that is just a fact.

      Delete
  4. "note the favoring of Muslims who have helped us, for starters." FWIW, I agree. But, are there any?

    "But since it's a statistical certainty that a number of non-Muslim immigrants will also resort to criminality, perhaps we could do some statistical research comparing various immigrant groups."
    Criminality? You mean like shop lifting? These aren't criminals. They're terrorists. They were bent on killing before they entered this country.
    They belong to a group who is actively seeking our subversion and destruction. As far as statistics go, c'mon really? Tsaernevs, UC Merced, Ft Hood, St Bernadino, I can go on. I am no statistician but I see a marked trend here and that is just for the US. We add what we are noting from Europe and a temporary moratorium on Islamic immigration is not only prudent but logical.

    Sorry if that came off too snarky.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm the last guy to get upset by snark...

      Well, look at it this way: I think it's clear from the low-level civil war in Mexico that the cartels are functionally terrorists. They might not go for random butchery, but they terrorize plenty, and have an iron grip on a drug trade that is enervating. Not to mention bidding fair to destabilize Mexico.

      Delete
  5. Dale - such an analysis of criminality might mess with the business model of certain... pharmaceutical organizations from more southerly regions.

    Can't have that, you know.

    ReplyDelete