Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination. I absolutely will not play nice.
So here's a perspective on the parent's statement and yours.
Being placed on a registry = bad.
- Have you supported or opposed gun registration?
- Did you support blocking purchase of guns based on your presence on a no fly list?
If your answer to either of the above two questions is yes, I'd advise you to strongly consider what drove you to that perspective?
If it was fear of some outcome beyond your control, then you'll probably understand why the idea of a Muslim registry sounded good to people worried about terrorism with all of the ISIS news.
If your answer to those questions was no, then congratulations on logical consistency.
Now, in terms of defeating calls and/or support for such a registry to you think it would be better to dismiss the fears that people have and insult them...or to have a civil discussion with them on why it's a bad idea, the constitutional problems it creates, historical outcomes or how it's virtually unenforceable?
The above video makes the point that dismissing and insulting rather than playing nice and engaging is exactly the problem. You can be against the registry and still have a civil debate. Slinging insults and avoiding the discussion entirely is the problem.
One of my favorite quotes:
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” - Isaac Asimov
So, no, sorry, a registration by ownership ( gun/car/fuzzy pink socks ) isn't the same as a registration by Religion.
This really should be obvious, but for some reason, it isn't.
You mentioned that the end outcome of being on a registry is historically followed by extermination. If that is the case, how is the reason for being on that registry given of a difference of weight? There are also historical patterns for what happens following a weapons registry...and none of them are good.
Also, regarding the Asimov quote...I'd challenge you to think nothing is so black and white. If you believe one person is merely ignorant, that the summation of what they've experienced in their own life that created the way they see things is dismissable is worth less than your own...you may want to look a little deeper.
Even somebody cooking meth has a story and a reason that drove them to it. You might not like it. You might not find it justifiable...but it's that person's reality and if you're not willing to understand the perspective of a person you view as ignorant then you are feeding your own.
> Being put on a registry because of your religion isn't a reward, and historically that kind of thing has been followed by extermination.
> You mentioned that the end outcome of being on a registry is historically followed by extermination.
Where did your interlocutor claim that being on any registry is historically followed by extermination? You're broadening their position to introduce contradictions that don't exist in the original.
It's like claiming that someone who doesn't support one kind of tax because that kind of tax has a history of causing very serious problems and very little benefit must necessarily oppose all taxes. If you want to prove that they should, based on their stated position, oppose all taxes, you'll need to demonstrate that all taxes cause very similar balance of benefits and problems to the one they oppose.
Actually I don't see how you can say that registration of gun ownership isn't the same as registration by religion. For many second amendment supporters it seems to equate to the same thing.
The idea I have seen is that self-defense is a god given right, and fundamental to being a free persion. This seems to be held as much as a philosophical, religious position as anything.
Telling a person who has that belief and thinks of themselves as a good person who doesn't mean harm to others that they can't be trusted not to kill other people, is no different from saying the same thing about a Muslim.
hence my point... I'm tempted to reply harshly but...
The first pattern was property ( as well as is used affects others ), the second pattern was a belief or similar ( others not affected ).
So, examples.
Car/Guns == Public Safety ( other people may be affected, socks was a joke, but you can argue that the buying of something, can be regulated by the seller as he wishes )
Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people... ( plus, some of these you can't change, and should have no bearing.. they are identifiers of people/culture/etc )
Violent Religious/Red Headed Person? We already have other methods/laws for this, it's called Laws against committing other crimes... The Red/Religion is superfluous...
I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.. again, the analogy should not be needed ( but it unfortunately is.. )
>> Fairytale/Sexual Preference/Religion/Red Hair == Does not affect other people
Yes, it was. These things do affect other people. Negatively? That's a subjective opinion, but all of these things are unique by case anyways. What do I mean? The fairytales of one person may result in some delusion that affects their family and relatives, and they abandon their social responsibilities to chase the white prince/queen/whatever. Also, one's religion has an affect on one's actions. If your religion says "kill the infidel", then complete adherence to such religion endangers others.
I'm not arguing that people should be registered, but the idea that ideology != affecting people is incorrect.
>> I'm sure in this oversimplification I made bad analogy.
At least you can admit that. That's more than some people can say. +1
> If it was fear of some outcome beyond your control, then you'll probably understand why the idea of a Muslim registry sounded good to people worried about terrorism with all of the ISIS news.
I completely understand why a Muslim registry sounds good to a lot of people. That doesn't make it a good idea.
(For what it's worth, the no-fly-list is an abomination, poorly thought out and poorly implemented.)
Many people oppose both the No Fly List and the registering of Muslims. It's not about which evil bastard in office did what. It's about drawing a line now, and getting the hell back to the safe part of the political spectrum, before there are human ashes rising from chimneys.
What exactly is the point you're trying to make here?
First, he was the CEO at the time of the controversy - a much more symbolically important leadership position than CTO. For many companies, their CEO is the face of the company, which makes any controversy much more damaging.
Second, he contributed money to a political campaign that was socially unacceptable to a large enough group of people that they made an enormous amount of noise about it. As a result, he stepped down (whether willingly or not behind the scenes, it was publically a willing resignation) because, in his words, "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." [1]
Isn't that the way the market is supposed to work? People boycotting Mozilla (i.e. "voting with their feet") led to the corporation responding to its consumers' desires.
What's the relation to a state registry based on religion, again?
Also, there is a difference between tolerance of opposing viewpoints, and tolerance of open attempts to strip others of rights. The political campaign he funded was very much the latter.
Brendan Eich? Yeah, here's what happened to him: he's now the CEO of another corporation. Not exactly the stuff of martyrdom...
It's not like his career was ruined. He was simply the wrong person to lead Mozilla.
It's important to note that the "campaign against gay marriage" was not just about a future ban, but specifically about the annulment of marriages already registered in California. How would you feel about someone who tried to annul your marriage without ever having met you? To me, that explains why people felt so strongly about his actions.
To my knowledge no one. However, there are people on the political spectrum who would like to curtail or eliminate gun ownership. If you are a gun owner who believes that firearms offer a means of protecting yourself and the government wishes to take away the tool of that protection, I could understand why that may be concerning.
I'm not voicing an opinion on this one way or the other, I was mearly stating that I could understand the concern. Perhaps I misunderstood the GP's comment.
The idea that a free person has the right to self-defense is based in something you are. For some people, banning
the ownership of guns is an attack on who they are. This is true for some people who don't currently own guns as much as those who do.
Gun ownership may not be a religion in itself, but the belief in the right to self defense, or to not be criminalized in advance, can certainly flow from religious beliefs.
The only powerful institution engaging the type of widespread dehumanization that gets people on registries right now is the mainstream media. And it's getting a free pass to do so.
Being placed on a registry = bad. - Have you supported or opposed gun registration? - Did you support blocking purchase of guns based on your presence on a no fly list?
If your answer to either of the above two questions is yes, I'd advise you to strongly consider what drove you to that perspective?
If it was fear of some outcome beyond your control, then you'll probably understand why the idea of a Muslim registry sounded good to people worried about terrorism with all of the ISIS news.
If your answer to those questions was no, then congratulations on logical consistency.
Now, in terms of defeating calls and/or support for such a registry to you think it would be better to dismiss the fears that people have and insult them...or to have a civil discussion with them on why it's a bad idea, the constitutional problems it creates, historical outcomes or how it's virtually unenforceable?
The above video makes the point that dismissing and insulting rather than playing nice and engaging is exactly the problem. You can be against the registry and still have a civil debate. Slinging insults and avoiding the discussion entirely is the problem.
One of my favorite quotes:
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald