Immigration Ban

[knapplc]

 

 

The question I have then is: what are the benefits?

 

 

We feel safer. We are not demonstrably safer, we were not demonstrably under any threat, we may never be under any threat from refugees, but all of that is irrelevant to how we feel.

 

Feeling safe is very important though, don't you agree?

 

 

If you were banned from HuskerBoard because your posts made someone feel unsafe, you would be OK with that?

[teachercd]

 

 

 

The question I have then is: what are the benefits?

 

 

We feel safer. We are not demonstrably safer, we were not demonstrably under any threat, we may never be under any threat from refugees, but all of that is irrelevant to how we feel.

 

Feeling safe is very important though, don't you agree?

 

 

If you were banned from HuskerBoard because your posts made someone feel unsafe, you would be OK with that?

 

Yeah...I would be okay with that. If you feel like I threatened you and put your life in danger...then by all means ban me.

 

A few years back, some posted put a picture up of another poster, "outing" him in a sense, on the Rivals site. Everyone felt unsafe and grossed out and that dude was banned and a rule was created about never doing that again.

 

The dude that was outed was HTO (a super annoying poster) but I didn't blame him for feeling unsafe about that situation and I agreed that the dude that outed him should have been banned. I imagine you would as well.

[Oade]

Is it your position that these human costs are worth a feeling of safety regardless of its basis in reality?

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no? Wouldn't they stay in their home countries if they already felt safe?

 

 

The reality is that these people should not be refugees to begin with... In terms of world wide peace and freedom, this should not be an issue.... Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end once and for all the reasons that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own?

 

I don't agree with an all out ban, I don't support endless acceptance of refugees without helping to solve the source reasons, and I don't support going to war.... What exactly about Obamas diplomatic-policies was going to lead to the resolution of this problem without going to war? How should Trump solve this issue peacefully?

[knapplc]

I feel threatened by teachercd.

[knapplc]

 

Is it your position that these human costs are worth a feeling of safety regardless of its basis in reality?

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no? Wouldn't they stay in their home countries if they already felt safe?

 

 

The reality is that these people should not be refugees to begin with... In terms of world wide peace and freedom, this should not be an issue.... Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end the reasons once and for all that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own?

 

I don't agree with an all out ban, I don't support endless acceptance of refugees without helping to solvee the source reasons, and I don't support going to war.... What exactly about Obamas diplomatic-policies was going to lead to the resolution of this problem without going to war? How should Trump solve this issue peacefully?

 

 

It offers them safety from bombs falling on their heads. I mean, they are literally asking us to save their lives. Not make them feel safe, but be safe.

 

[teachercd]

I feel threatened by teachercd.

So then you fully agree that if I also feel threatened by you that we should both be banned from here, correct? I am down if you are down.

[knapplc]

 

I feel threatened by teachercd.

So then you fully agree that if I also feel threatened by you that we should both be banned from here, correct? I am down if you are down.

 

 

I do not agree with your stance that "feeling safe is very important." Unlike you, I believe being safe is very important.

 

 

That's where we differ, and why you're OK with being banned based on someone's feeling, while I'm not. Understand?

[Fru]

There have been zero deaths from refugees. This is an invented problem, just like voter fraud.

[zoogs]

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees?

I don't believe the "source" problem is solvable in the sense that there will always be refugees somewhere. The world will never be devoid of humanitarian crises. When and where they do occur, I believe taking in refugees is the right thing to do.

 

As for what "more than a feeling of safety", it offers them actual safety and an actual shot at life. Which makes it not comparable to a mere feeling.

 

Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end the reasons once and for all that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own?

I don't know. I don't think there's a neat solution in Syria. I don't think boots on the ground would have accomplished the zero refugees end we would hope for. And that would be war.

[teachercd]

 

 

I feel threatened by teachercd.

So then you fully agree that if I also feel threatened by you that we should both be banned from here, correct? I am down if you are down.

 

 

I do not agree with your stance that "feeling safe is very important." Unlike you, I believe being safe is very important.

 

 

That's where we differ, and why you're OK with being banned based on someone's feeling, while I'm not. Understand?

 

Got it!

 

 

 

So, that poster I mentioned on Rivals that outed another poster and was banned even though at the time there was no rule about it...you feel that was wrong.

 

Thanks! I appreciate your comments

[Oade]

 

 

Is it your position that these human costs are worth a feeling of safety regardless of its basis in reality?

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no? Wouldn't they stay in their home countries if they already felt safe?

 

 

The reality is that these people should not be refugees to begin with... In terms of world wide peace and freedom, this should not be an issue.... Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end the reasons once and for all that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own?

 

I don't agree with an all out ban, I don't support endless acceptance of refugees without helping to solvee the source reasons, and I don't support going to war.... What exactly about Obamas diplomatic-policies was going to lead to the resolution of this problem without going to war? How should Trump solve this issue peacefully?

 

 

It offers them safety from bombs falling on their heads. I mean, they are literally asking us to save their lives. Not make them feel safe, but be safe.

 

 

 

Fair enough, so allow me to amend the part of my post that you bolded..... "Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of temporary safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no?"

 

Do we expect/allow for all of these refugees to never return to their homes? Do we expect the violence in Syria to end without further diplomatic or military policy? Or will it continue/spread across boarders until these extremest have killed everyone?

 

How were we truly offering a solution to their safety-risks under the previous administrations, what should we continue from those policies, and what else should we do to solve the source-problem of their safety-risks going forward?

 

Lets be real, the refugees aren't the issue, the war is, what are we doing to end it? Does offering refuge indefinitely truly solve anything?

[teachercd]

 

 

 

Is it your position that these human costs are worth a feeling of safety regardless of its basis in reality?

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no? Wouldn't they stay in their home countries if they already felt safe?

 

 

The reality is that these people should not be refugees to begin with... In terms of world wide peace and freedom, this should not be an issue.... Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end the reasons once and for all that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own?

 

I don't agree with an all out ban, I don't support endless acceptance of refugees without helping to solvee the source reasons, and I don't support going to war.... What exactly about Obamas diplomatic-policies was going to lead to the resolution of this problem without going to war? How should Trump solve this issue peacefully?

 

 

It offers them safety from bombs falling on their heads. I mean, they are literally asking us to save their lives. Not make them feel safe, but be safe.

 

 

 

Fair enough, so allow me to amend the part of my post that you bolded..... "Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of temporary safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no?"

 

Do we expect/allow for all of these refugees to never return to their homes? Do we expect the violence in Syria to end without further diplomatic or military policy? Or will it continue/spread across boarders until these extremest have killed everyone?

 

How were we truly offering a solution to their safety-risks under the previous administrations, what should we continue from those policies, and what else should we do to solve the source-problem of their safety-risks going forward?

 

Lets be real the refugees aren't the issue, the war is, what are we doing to end it? Does offering refuge indefinitely solve anything?

 

This is a great post

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Is it your position that these human costs are worth a feeling of safety regardless of its basis in reality?

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no? Wouldn't they stay in their home countries if they already felt safe?

 

 

The reality is that these people should not be refugees to begin with... In terms of world wide peace and freedom, this should not be an issue.... Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end the reasons once and for all that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own?

 

I don't agree with an all out ban, I don't support endless acceptance of refugees without helping to solvee the source reasons, and I don't support going to war.... What exactly about Obamas diplomatic-policies was going to lead to the resolution of this problem without going to war? How should Trump solve this issue peacefully?

It offers them safety from bombs falling on their heads. I mean, they are literally asking us to save their lives. Not make them feel safe, but be safe.

 

Did he really ask that question?

[knapplc]

 

 

 

I feel threatened by teachercd.

So then you fully agree that if I also feel threatened by you that we should both be banned from here, correct? I am down if you are down.

 

I do not agree with your stance that "feeling safe is very important." Unlike you, I believe being safe is very important.

 

 

That's where we differ, and why you're OK with being banned based on someone's feeling, while I'm not. Understand?

 

Got it!

 

 

 

So, that poster I mentioned on Rivals that outed another poster and was banned even though at the time there was no rule about it...you feel that was wrong.

 

Thanks! I appreciate your comments

 

In this Rivals scenario, the person was banned for the act of outing someone, not the feeling it engendered.

 

Don't confuse feelings with facts. That's the problem here, and why you don't understand how I feel.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

Is it your position that these human costs are worth a feeling of safety regardless of its basis in reality?

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no? Wouldn't they stay in their home countries if they already felt safe?

 

 

The reality is that these people should not be refugees to begin with... In terms of world wide peace and freedom, this should not be an issue.... Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end the reasons once and for all that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own?

 

I don't agree with an all out ban, I don't support endless acceptance of refugees without helping to solvee the source reasons, and I don't support going to war.... What exactly about Obamas diplomatic-policies was going to lead to the resolution of this problem without going to war? How should Trump solve this issue peacefully?

 

It offers them safety from bombs falling on their heads. I mean, they are literally asking us to save their lives. Not make them feel safe, but be safe.

 

Fair enough, so allow me to amend the part of my post that you bolded..... "Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of temporary safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no?"

 

Do we expect/allow for all of these refugees to never return to their homes? Do we expect the violence in Syria to end without further diplomatic or military policy? Or will it continue/spread across boarders until these extremest have killed everyone?

 

How were we truly offering a solution to their safety-risks under the previous administrations, what should we continue from those policies, and what else should we do to solve the source-problem of their safety-risks going forward?

 

Lets be real, the refugees aren't the issue, the war is, what are we doing to end it? Does offering refuge indefinitely truly solve anything?

 

Your house is on fire. You don't stay in the burning house, you leave.

 

Once the house has been rebuilt, you return.