Friday, December 4, 2015

Regarding the Problem of Evil

How does this impact it?

7 comments:

B. Prokop said...

Crude,

I actually agree with Trump on the idea of banning Muslims into the US, but I suspect this has just killed his chances at getting the nomination. What are your thoughts?

(I still think Trump is a Bad Man.)

Crude said...

I actually agree with Trump on the idea of banning Muslims into the US, but I suspect this has just killed his chances at getting the nomination. What are your thoughts?

It's funny how 'Trump just killed his chances' has been the refrain since July, and it's always followed by 'Trump surges in the polls'. As he himself said - everyone attacks and denounces him. Two weeks later, they're agreeing with him.

Regardless, it's moot. I'd rather he do what he's doing and lose, than do what Clinton, Sanders and Rubio are doing and win.

(I still think Trump is a Bad Man.)

Yeah, 'He said he never felt the need to ask God for forgiveness' as the greatest sin still doesn't impress me, Bob. Hillary Clinton has blood on her hands in way after way - talk about how she's a rotten woman, why don't you.

B. Prokop said...

"talk about how she's a rotten woman, why don't you?"

She is. I'm no Clinton fan. Didn't like her in 2008, and like her even less today. The only two people currently running that I have the slightest bit of attraction for are both way down in the single digits in the polls (and no, I am not revealing who they are). So no matter who wins in the end this time around, I lose.

Going wa-a-a-a-ay out on a limb here, but if I had to put money on it right now, I'd predict a Cruz-Clinton race with a nail-biter outcome next November.

Syllabus said...

Yeah, 'He said he never felt the need to ask God for forgiveness' as the greatest sin still doesn't impress me, Bob.

That's hardly the only reason someone could think he's a shitstain. Hell, it's not the only reason that someone who isn't by any description a leftie -- me, say -- might dislike him or think that he's a thoroughly unlikable individual.

To the general point: I'm not really in favour of increased immigration across the board, and am in favour of decreasing the total amount of immigrants substantially, and further am in favour of only taking in people who we figure are going to contribute to the best interests of the people already here.

But simply saying "ban all Muslims" strikes me as being a bad idea. For one thing, making religion a barrier to entry strikes me as in general being a bad -- not to mention unfeasible -- idea. There are of course limit cases (it'd be a good idea to bar Wahhabis from entering the country, for instance, for obvious reasons), but in general, especially when talking about a people group of ~1.5*10^9 people, it's way too broad a criterion.

For another, "Muslim" is not anywhere near as good a criterion as, say "rural Turk" or "Syrian" or "Saudi", for the obvious reason that, while Islam has a strong cultural component, it's spread across too man disparate cultures to really yield a relevant criterion for barrier to entry.

Plus, barring extraordinary circumstances, I have a great deal of disliking for discrimination by the state on the grounds of a person's religion. Part of it's a moral dislike, but another part is just self-preservation -- I don't like the state having that much power.

Oh, also -- initially he wanted to get rid of all Muslims who were American citizens, which strikes me as a pretty nasty thing.

Crude said...

Bob,

She is. I'm no Clinton fan. Didn't like her in 2008, and like her even less today.

Let's see where you are in six months.

Syllabus,

That's hardly the only reason someone could think he's a shitstain.

It's Bob's go-to idea, so take it up with him.

But simply saying "ban all Muslims" strikes me as being a bad idea. For one thing, making religion a barrier to entry strikes me as in general being a bad -- not to mention unfeasible -- idea. There are of course limit cases (it'd be a good idea to bar Wahhabis from entering the country, for instance, for obvious reasons), but in general, especially when talking about a people group of ~1.5*10^9 people, it's way too broad a criterion.

Why? Because it's impolite?

You know, I'll be frank: my opinion is that if you make me choose between secular liberals and muslims, I'm leaning muslim. They have less blood on their hands, they're less of a threat.

But I'll go further: this idea that 'The vast majority of muslims are nice peaceful folk' leaves out the fact that the 'vast majority' living in peace do so in regimes, and with approval of laws, that we'd find distasteful. To think that these influences go away when they take a citizenship oath is as stupid as believing that liberals become conservative the moment they go to church, become priests, or switch parties to the GOP.

For another, "Muslim" is not anywhere near as good a criterion as, say "rural Turk" or "Syrian" or "Saudi", for the obvious reason that, while Islam has a strong cultural component, it's spread across too man disparate cultures to really yield a relevant criterion for barrier to entry.

Disparate? Which one has no problem with depictions of Mohammed, or muslim to Christian conversions? These cultures aren't as disparate as one might think.

Care to use the Turks as an example? Secular democracy over there. Very strong secular tradition. How's that working out? Or Egypt, for that matter. Arab Spring, eh?

Part of it's a moral dislike, but another part is just self-preservation -- I don't like the state having that much power.

In case you haven't noticed, the state doesn't care. The SCOTUS makes up whatever rules it likes. And you know what all the nice Christians say when that happens? 'We are a nation of laws!' 'Render unto Caesar!' 'We have to obey the law!'

Let me guess: more self-preservation?

I suggest at least considering that fighting a perpetually defensive battle is a losing battle, and if losing is inevitable, then doing so without apology is the better course. Are you a Republican? Well, guess what - Harry Reid, and the media culture, thinks you're a fucking bigot. Denounce Trump all you like - you're still a dirty, filthy, wife-beating, black-lynching bigot who 'needs to address the real problems' in those of your political and racial caste. Attack Trump all you like. You're still a fucking bigot, and you will be until you do as they say.

Actually, no. You'll still be a bigot then, because of your past crimes, and your race.

Trump has, in a few months, done more for the American right and what's left of traditional American culture than Bush did in 8 years. Finally, someone was called a horrible evil bigot for daring to suggest that there's a real problem with Islam, a real problem with immigration, and a real problem with this country - and he stood his ground. And it paid off in spades.

The GOP, meanwhile, is trying to sell fucking Rubio as the answer to our prayers. Give me a break.

B. Prokop said...

The West needs to wake up to the fact that this current crisis has NOTHING to do with left/right, liberal/conservative, statist/libertarian arguments. The Muslims consider mass immigration to be a Weapon of War - no different than a machine gun or a howitzer, except far more effective. Defeated at Tours, Lepanto, and Vienna, this is nothing more (or less!) than yet another in a log string of Muslim attempts to conquer Europe. Never forget - the Crusades (a just war if there ever was one) were a counterattack against four centuries of non-stop Muslim aggression against historically Christian lands.

If we start a circular firing squad of left against right, etc., the only ones laughing will be the Mohammedans.

Crude said...

The West needs to wake up to the fact that this current crisis has NOTHING to do with left/right, liberal/conservative, statist/libertarian arguments.

Bullshit.

The Left has been making the muslims sacred from day one. The Left has made criticizing Islam a crime. The Left reacts with outrage whenever Mohammed is drawn. Not the right, the Left. In fact, the Left has been openly aiding, abetting and encouraging the mass immigration we see in Europe - see Soros - because they dream of a 'multicultural' society, where evil nasty white Christian males are permanently supplanted.

If we start a circular firing squad of left against right, etc., the only ones laughing will be the Mohammedans.

Go ahead, Bob. Try to find the leftists who are standing up against the Muslims. Your choices are down to 'the worst kinds of Cult of Gnu atheist dregs who think Muslims and Catholics are equivalent', and little else.