US Politics: Spicey Onion Indigestion in the Age of Trump

[Guy Kilmore]

1 minute ago, Savannah said:

Aren't they immigrants only if they are allowed to stay legally? 

No.  An immigrant is a person who chooses to live in a foreign country.

[Mudguard]

10 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Indeed. We do not allow the term "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants.

[mod] As such, those who were using that term on the previous page would do well to take this as a mod warning to not use the term in the future, lest your post disappear and your posting privileges with it. Thank you. [/mod] 

Undocumented immigrants doesn't seem to be an accurate term much of the time, since it wouldn't cover people overstaying their visas, which happens a lot.  These people have documentation; they just aren't abiding by the terms.

Would it be OK to use "unlawful immigrant/alien"?  Or "removable immigrant/alien"?  I've seen both terms used.

[Savannah]

Just now, Guy Kilmore said:

No.  An immigrant is a person who chooses to live in a foreign country.

Without it being consensual? 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mudguard said:

Reducing patent term hurts startups the most, particularly for pharma, biotech, and medical device startups that lack the resources to speed up an already very long R&D and regulatory process.  These startups are then often acquired by big pharma or big medical device companies, but much of the innovation and risk taking actually happens at startups.

You know, a lot of this argument is like, "In order to get X to do useful stuff, we have to give them a monopoly." That's not how really think about the majority of businesses. Usually, competition is considered a good thing.

And then you have the fact that often patents can be used to stifle innovations because of patent trolls and defensive patenting. I'd suspect the majority of victims of these things are actually start ups.

Just now, Mudguard said:

Reducing patent term hurts startups the most, particularly for pharma, biotech, and medical device startups that lack the resources to speed up an already very long R&D and regulatory process.  These startups are then often acquired by big pharma or big medical device companies, but much of the innovation and risk taking actually happens at startups.

Our public research infrastructure is not set up to take over the private R&D costs and functions that are required to bring most pharma, biotech, and medical device products to market.  Public research, which includes research at universities and government research labs are good at basic research and initial development work, but there's a long way from that to an actual product.  You can't simply increase spending on public research and expect a bunch of new products if you've destroyed or weakened the industry that translates basic research into actual products.

Well, you act is if our public research infrastructure cant be changed or improved.  I wouldn't assume that is the case. But, also, I'd say, "so what if private companies have to bear the cost of some of the research?" In fact, they should. I'm sure if somebody sees an opportunity to make money, they will do the research necessary to make a product, particularly if the public has borne the initial cost of the research. There is still money to made, particularly if your the first guy with idea to the market.

[The Anti-Targ]

26 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

What are the radical christian groups that these white men will belong to/be acting in the name of?

 

14 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Certainly you do not have to belong to a group to be a terrorist.  What an odd question.

But if you're going to try and draw an equivalence between radical Islamist terrorists, it sort of makes a difference, no?  

Otherwise why not jsut call them 'Radical white arm having terrorists'.  or 'radical white terrorists who ate food this week'.

Well you did ask, and that being the only subject of your post it seemed like to you it is important that these people have to identify with a group and be killing in the name of. Which is not the case.

Is it true that all incidents of radical Islamic terror have been committed by people explicitly identified with a particular group? I was under the impression that some incidents were committed by people acting alone, albeit who have been radicalised by organised institutions.

BTW we should also include people of any hew who violently attack abortion services as RCTs. Though it's possible they might be RATs (Radical Abrahamic Terrorists).

[Guy Kilmore]

4 minutes ago, Savannah said:

Without it being consensual? 

Yes

Clarity:  The legality of it doesn't matter.

[Xray the Enforcer]

12 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Undocumented immigrants doesn't seem to be an accurate term much of the time, since it wouldn't cover people overstaying their visas, which happens a lot.  These people have documentation; they just aren't abiding by the terms.

Would it be OK to use "unlawful immigrant/alien"?  Or "removable immigrant/alien"?  I've seen both terms used.

I'll bring it up with the mod team, but for now please stick with undocumented immigrant or just say "someone who overstayed their visa" if that's most accurate. Thank you.

ETA: Flagged this for the mod team. We will advise once we've reached a consensus. 

[Chaircat Meow]

Poll by Ipsos conducted 30-31 Jan, online, of just over 1,000 respondents, has 41% against the ban but 49% in favour.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15F2MG

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well you did ask, and that being the only subject of your post it seemed like to you it is important that these people have to identify with a group and be killing in the name of. Which is not the case.

I asked specifically because of the notion that they should be designated as christian terrorists.

 

Quote

Is it true that all incidents of radical Islamic terror have been committed by people explicitly identified with a particular group?

Probably not.

Quote

I was under the impression that some incidents were committed by people acting alone, albeit who have been radicalised by organised institutions.

Also likely, but I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the conversation at hand.

 

Quote

BTW we should also include people of any hew who violently attack abortion services as RCTs. Though it's possible they might be RATs (Radical Abrahamic Terrorists).

 

Sorry, I can't really parse this.  Possibly because it's late in the day.

 

 

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

You know, a lot of this argument is like, "In order to get X to do useful stuff, we have to give them a monopoly." That's not how really think about the majority of businesses. Usually, competition is considered a good thing.

And then you have the fact that often patents can be used to stifle innovations because of patent trolls and defensive patenting. I'd suspect the majority of victims of these things are actually start ups.

Well, you act is if our public research infrastructure cant be changed or improved.  I wouldn't assume that is the case. But, also, I'd say, "so what if private companies have to bear the cost of some of the research?" In fact, they should. I'm sure if somebody sees an opportunity to make money, they will do the research necessary to make a product, particularly if the public has borne the initial cost of the research. There is still money to made, particularly if your the first guy with idea to the market.

And it does not drive innovation when there is considerable public need. We haven't had a new class of antibiotic (that can deal with multi-drug resistant strains) created in ages. And the lure of a nice long patent has not acted to motivate any pharma companies because there isn't the return there for them. But we could certainly use a new class of antibiotic that is used extremely judiciously to deal with cases of infection with multi-drug resistant bugs.

It really requires a public institution with the mandate, and public (or private philanthropic, like the Gates Foundation) money to find a new class of antibiotic.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I asked specifically because of the notion that they should be designated as christian terrorists.

 

As I said in my first reply, 95% of the time it will be true, as in they largely motivated to go on their killing spree by their warped view of Christianity.

They are no more representative of the 2.5 billion Christians in the world than the RITs are representative of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. But we seem happy to tag RITs as such and thus denigrate all Muslims in doing so.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

And it does not drive innovation when there is considerable public need. We haven't had a new class of antibiotic (that can deal with multi-drug resistant strains) created in ages. And the lure of a nice long patent has not acted to motivate any pharma companies because there isn't the return there for them. But we could certainly use a new class of antibiotic that is used extremely judiciously to deal with cases of infection with multi-drug resistant bugs.

Also, it may stop companies from developing needed drugs because the drug in question may not get a patent and the company may opt for a product that would get a more lucrative patent.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Sorry, I can't really parse this.  Possibly because it's late in the day.

It's possible that attacks on abortion services is a multi-faith thing where conservative Jews, Christians and Muslims (the Abrahamic faiths) all participate. Hence RAT.

[Tempra]

Any last minute guesses on SCOTUS nominee?  Dems are already vowing the filibuster any nominee that is not Merrick Garland.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368

[Swordfish]

11 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

As I said in my first reply, 95% of the time it will be true, as in they largely motivated to go on their killing spree by their warped view of Christianity.

 

You seem to be conflating 'in the name of Christianity' with 'by a person who is christian'.

They aren't the same.  

Quote

They are no more representative of the 2.5 billion Christians in the world than the RITs are representative of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.

Indeed.  Hence the 'radical' differentiation in the term 'radical islam'..

 

Quote

But we seem happy to tag RITs as such and thus denigrate all Muslims in doing so.

Who is we? Don't lump me into that group please.

 

[DunderMifflin]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

You seem to be conflating 'in the name of Christianity' with 'by a person who is christian'.

They aren't the same.  

I don't think there's any attempt to avoid this conflation when it comes comes to Islamic terrorism. 

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I don't think there's any attempt to avoid this conflation when it comes comes to Islamic terrorism. 

Sorry, this is nonsense.  It's right there in the phrase for all the world to see: 'radical islam'.

Are you suggesting you do not make this distinction?

I certainly do, as do many other people i know, and as do many, if not most, members of this message board.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

6 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

You seem to be conflating 'in the name of Christianity' with 'by a person who is christian'.

They aren't the same.  

 

Not at all. The X in Radical X Terrorist identifies the person's motivation for committing terrorist acts. The assertion is that the person is motivated by their warped Christian beliefs. And this would appear to be mostly true in the context originally described.

[DunderMifflin]

Let's not forget that the Christian god spoke directly to George W Bush and directed him to attack people. How is this any different than what people call Islamic terrorism.

[LongRider]

I think the idea behind 'Radical Christian Terrorist' is that those who shoot up places and kill many people and are white males are subsequently described as 'recently depressed' or 'quiet loner' or some such BS instead of something a bit more truthful.   In other words, white men mass shooters, are given a mental health pass without having their radicalism investigated or made public.  However, those with darker skins are called 'terrorists' of some type or another right away.  The point being, terrorists come in all races and should be noted as such.  If a white mass shooter did the shooting because of Radical Christianity, then they should be called a 'Radical Christian Terrorist'.