Its a funny thing emotional reasoning especially when it is disguised or camouflaged by moral righteousness. Meaning of course that those who are deeming themselves to be arguing from a position of moral superiority (the same often applies in respect to those deeming themselves arguing from an intellectually superior standpoint) often are really just making emotional arguments.
Once rational critique comes into play the emotional reasoner usually is unable to make anything resembling reasoned arguments. Often leaving themselves with only their soapbox, the illusion of moral righteousness and the hope that their virtue signalling will be seen but other emotional reasoners to take up their charge.
I have a good idea of where Odeon may be for example on the issue of abortion. Now in this, he will register that the Pro-choice view of abortion gives the Mother autonomy on her body BUT the Father and Baby (fetus) do not get the same degree of rights. Their rights are superseded by the Mother's rights. Now this is a widely held belief and on a non-emotional perspective it can be argued that in this positioning of rights and dealing with this issue, unfortunately unfairly or not, not everyone can hold the same rights. Yes the Father may want to be a Dad and see the baby born and raise the baby, and yes it is unfair that this will not be able to be accommodated BUT to accommodate him and his wants would be at the expense of the Mother. Someone is the loser in this situation and as unfair or even heart-breaking as it is, it is bad luck for the Father.
Now I dare say Odeon will completely miss the point and indeed the importance of this analogy and probably say I am comparing Muslims to abortion or suggesting Muslims ought to be aborted. This is precisely what I was saying about emotional reasoners:
will not read what is being said and the little that is said will be filtered through their pathetic emotional filter and is given to misrepresentation.
The reality is that sometimes things are unfair or unjust to a person or a group of people without being bigoted. Sometimes the outcome is unfavourable or the result is not equal but the intent or the premise is not bigoted.
If the Muslim immigration freeze was placed on Muslim immigration then would some decent Muslim immigrants be affected? Yes and no. It may well mean that a Muslim immigrant or a family of Muslim immigrants with their heart set on immigrating to America in exclusion to all other countries, may be thwarted temporarily. The disclaimer of course is that this would be temporary and would not also exclude immigrating anywhere else. (It goes without saying that MOST of these potential Muslim immigrants would be fine and decent people).
Now the argument is that like the rights of Father in the example I used to display a superseding of rights, these rights of Muslim immigrants would be superseded (though in a far less permanent way) by the rights of the US citizens. Again, like the example I used, it is not a case of bigotry or intolerance at the individuals or group of people that it affects but rather that the outcome is unfavourable to a group and they would be at the receiving end.
Of course there is another aspect in this, how many immigrants is America OBLIGED to take in? What is teh US morally obliged to? Switzerland is actively turning Muslims away and Austria seems to want to follow suit. At what point is US allowed to say "No I think we will reduce or limit the Muslim immigrants in". For what reason too? Who do they answer to and what would be considered compelling for what reason? Is it enough that the rates of Muslim refugees making it through the vetting process that are discovered with tuberculosis is 25% of some Muslim refugees populations enough to slow things up? What about the outbreak of Measles bought in through infected Muslim Refugee populations? What about the recognition of 900 active cases of Domestic US based Islamic extremism? Is THAT enough to give the US pause to think?
The emotional reasoner will say "Don't be mean. Don't think on things. Any examination on the impact of bringing Muslims into America during times where radical Muslim extremism is prolific, is bigoted".
No it isn't and was never.
If people wish to reason that there is no issue worth considering and that things are going smooth and peachy, I disagree. I am not repelled by their opinion but I disagree. Therefore if someone recognises the issue that I see (radical Muslim extremism and its impact globally and its threat to US) then I am likely to in principle respect their want to address these threats. I am more than happy to consider other solutions too.
As mentioned before, I see very little difference in effect, Australia's hardline stance on illegal and refugee immigrants and this proposed stance.
Australia will capture and intern illegal immigrants and refugees off-shore in detention centres until they can be verified and resettled. The proposed US option is to hold off on allowing Muslim immigrants in temporarily until they are able to scrutinise better.
Putting it in real terms a Muslim immigrant trying to boat over to Australia compared to trying to apply for refugee status in America are both going to be kept off-shore temporarily and not allowed to resettle in the the host country. The only difference is that the one trying to immigrate to America would be able to apply to resettle elsewhere for the limited time the freeze was on, whereas the one that tried in Australia would be kept a couple of year in a detention centre before being cleared for resettling.
Border protection and national security are entirely the responsibility of the country enforcing their measures. They will be different and I believe that they have a right to identify and address whatever threat they deem appropriate. Doing so is not in itself bigoted.
No matter what emotional reasoners will say.
