@jym626 #1453: I know—that’s why I worded my post very carefully. Men who have had sex with men anytime in the past year are still deferred, even though the risk is no higher for that group than for many other groups who aren’t deferred.
@dfbdfb I didn’t read your post as addressing the changes in the recommended policy changes for blood donations.
No, it wasn’t—it was saying that a policy was put in place based on an overgeneralization of a minimal risk. This is the case whether you look at the new blood donation policy or the one that’s existed for the past several years (which is why I phrased it as I did, so what I was saying would work under either policy).
And, more crucially, I was drawing a parallel between that overgeneralization of a minimal risk with the overgeneralization of a minimal risk that’s occurring as people are saying, essentially, that we have to be careful about all Muslims because of what a very small proportion have done/are doing.
Hopefully it’s clear now.
" And, more crucially, I was drawing a parallel between that overgeneralization of a minimal risk with the overgeneralization of a minimal risk that’s occurring as people are saying, essentially, that we have to be careful about all Muslims because of what a very small proportion have done/are doing"
That might be accurate if you are talking about a minimal risk of Islamic terrorism directly affecting people while they are in the US, however, those who have loved ones in the military and millions of people overseas do not think their risk is minimal. And unfortunately the “very small proportion” is being supported by many more people, and if not always welcomed, certainly tolerated and not fought against by a far larger number. Those “very small” numbers of people have been as successful as they have been, because of this support network. They are certainly not superhuman, not particularly intelligent, but since enough people have allowed this, this cancer has been able to spread.
And that is what is truly dangerous. When most people stand by, capitulate, or don’t fight back, tiny numbers of evil people can control large populations.
Do the Islamic terrorists have a large support network in the United States? What is your evidence for this claim, busdriver? That brings me back to the question of the San Bernardino killers. We only know of one other person who knew that the couple was planning an attack-- the dimwit catspaw that was arrested. And it’s not even clear that he knew they were planning this particular attack.
“Do the Islamic terrorists have a large support network in the United States? What is your evidence for this claim, busdriver?”
No, I certainly don’t think so. I was referring to the areas where the terrorists have been very successful, in particular Iraq, Syria, countries where they actually hold territory. I don’t think that the areas where, “Most people stand by, capitulate, or don’t fight back, tiny numbers of evil people can control large populations,” are in the US, do you?
Sorry for misunderstanding your oblique statements, busdriver. But I’d say that in an area where those in power behead dissenters, it can be understandable to stand by, and it can also be understandable to leave, as millions of people-- half the population of Syria-- have done.
“Sorry for misunderstanding your oblique statements, busdriver.”
That’s funny. Why bother saying sorry?
“But I’d say that in an area where those in power behead dissenters, it can be understandable to stand by, and it can also be understandable to leave, as millions of people-- half the population of Syria-- have done”
Quite telling that the countries where ISIS (a Sunni terrorist group) manages to prosper, are Sunni majority populations. Not Shiite populations, but Sunni. Not Christian, not Jewish, not Hindu, but Sunni. They would certainly get far more resistance if they were trying to establish themselves in non-Sunni territories.
A news report I just read about the partial liberation of Ramadi, Iraq, mentioned that since the Iraqi military force was made up of mostly Shiites, that the civilian population could view them worse than the ISIS occupation. If that’s true, that’s just sad.
@busdriver11 You have to remember that the “large swathes of land” that Daesh controls is not because of some invasion they carried out on a peaceful “Sunni majority” country where they were passively welcomed. Most of Iraq and Syria (and Libya now) were war torn when Daesh made its move.
“@busdriver11 You have to remember that the “large swathes of land” that Daesh controls is not because of some invasion they carried out on a peaceful “Sunni majority” country where they were passively welcomed. Most of Iraq and Syria (and Libya now) were war torn when Daesh made its move”
Yes, they seem to be quite opportunistic, moving in where there is disorder. Should make people think twice about trying to remove violent dictators, because when you do, instead of democracy and peace taking over, it more like this sort of cancer spreading.
I agree-- just because a situation is bad doesn’t mean you can’t make it worse. On the other hand, when the violent dictator is using chemical weapons on his own people, one can see the appeal of trying to topple him.
27 people were shot and killed on Christmas Day (doesn’t include suicides). But it’s less than the daily average of 36 so…
^^ What @greenwitch just posted.
Here we have people going on and on about the allegedly huge risk of Islamist terrorism in this country, which yes, does exist, but is actually quite incredibly minimal compared that what’s already happening with violence in other contexts.
Like I’ve posted before, humans are really, really horrible at judging risk. Unfortunately, once we’ve decided something is risky and something else isn’t risky, the flip side is that we’re also really, really good at ignoring actual numbers relating to risk if they disagree with our preconceived perceptions of those risks.
Go figure. Literally.
Cnn just reported that Obama will announce in the next few days an executive order with tighter gun regulations. Didn’t hear any more than that. About time.
Cue the gun nut outrage in 3…2…1…
Obama to announce new executive action on guns
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politics/obama-to-announce-new-executive-action-on-guns/index.html
Looks like he wants expanded background checks on gun purchasers. Kind of like we already have on the books here in Colorado.
A Florida mom shot and killed her daughter who was visiting over the holidays, mistaking her for an intruder. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/31/florida-mother-shoots-and-killed-daughter-mistook-for-intruder.html Mom is a police dispatcher and dad is a police officer so presumably these gun owners were trained in gun safety and I’m sure they would never have believed the data showing that owning a gun made their family less safe. I wonder how they feel now . . .
That’s a sad story, pittsburghscribe. I understand keeping a gun for protection, but I don’t understand shoot and ask questions later behavior. I’m sure the Mom will be tortured by her actions for the rest of her life. I wouldn’t wish that kind of pain on anyone.
If only her daughter had a gun as well so none of this would have happened. :(|)