[brightball]

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

[keepper]

Since we are going to do arguments by quotes..

“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.

I really wish I had the answer to that...

[brightball]

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.

[ashark]

> 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.

[brightball]

Edited to clarify. Good catch.

[zepto]

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.

[rublev]

What about Registration by Fairytale?

[keepper]

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.. )

[nercht12]

>> 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

[pavel_lishin]

> 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.)

[eli_gottlieb]

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.