ACLU Wins - Federal Judge Just Issued A Stay Against Trump's Muslim Ban

[whichphilosophy]

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1047486/middle-east

BU DHABI: US President Donald Trump’s travel ban on citizens of seven Muslim-majority nations is not anti-Islam, the United Arab Emirates foreign minister said on Wednesday.
Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, whose country is a close ally of Washington, said it was “wrong to say” that the decision by the new US administration was “directed against a particular religion.”
“The United States has made... a sovereign decision,” he said at a joint press conference with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, pointing out that it was “provisional” and did not apply to “the large majority” of the world’s Muslims.

Further in the article is mention of safe zones in Syria. Let's hope not.

 

[ZiprHead]

Russian counterpart. Riiiight...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

why is there a russian counterpart there???

 

[fast]

Characterizing the EO as a "ban targeting Muslims" would still be an inaccurate characterization of the EO, since the EO bans Muslims and non-Muslims in 7 countries.

Just because more than your targets were affected doesn't mean you weren't targeting. The non-Muslims are just collateral damage.

If I openly express my full intent to prevent blacks in my town from entering my restaurant and erect a sign (sign 1) saying "no blacks allowed" and find that it is illegal and subsequently forced to take it down, then if I espouse my full intent to find an alternative work around and discover that only blacks in my town make less than 30k per year and erect another sign (sign 2) saying "no one making under 30k a year allowed," then characterizing my new sign as racist needs to be done with astute distinction.

The new sign (regardless of my true end goal) is not (by the words on it) a direct ban on blacks. I'm effectively achieving my goal (because of the correlation between blacks and income in my particular town), but a ban having an alternative effect is not a true ban on alternatives but rather a ban on precisely what is expressed. It's a technical inaccuracy to say I'm banning blacks.

 

[RavenSky]

If the reason for limiting this ban to those countries was that the population is predominantly Muslim, it can be rationally characterized as a "ban targeting Muslims".

Characterizing the EO as a "ban targeting Muslims" would still be an inaccurate characterization of the EO, since the EO bans Muslims and non-Muslims in 7 countries.

I'd characterize it as a ban of people from Muslim predominate countries that Trump does not do business with.

How would you characterize it?

 

[Warpoet]

You know, acting like a total asshat does not increase the power of your argument.

It does however get guys like Trump elected.

Yeah, me not taking dishonest trolls seriously (trollery itself isn't asshattery to you, apparently, if you agree with it, but my dismissal of it somehow is) is what made people vote for an orange con artist. Fuck off.

 

[laughing dog]

Just because more than your targets were affected doesn't mean you weren't targeting. The non-Muslims are just collateral damage.

If I openly express my full intent to prevent blacks in my town from entering my restaurant and erect a sign (sign 1) saying "no blacks allowed" and find that it is illegal and subsequently forced to take it down, then if I espouse my full intent to find an alternative work around and discover that only blacks in my town make less than 30k per year and erect another sign (sign 2) saying "no one making under 30k a year allowed," then characterizing my new sign as racist needs to be done with astute distinction.

The new sign (regardless of my true end goal) is not (by the words on it) a direct ban on blacks. I'm effectively achieving my goal (because of the correlation between blacks and income in my particular town), but a ban having an alternative effect is not a true ban on alternatives but rather a ban on precisely what is expressed. It's a technical inaccuracy to say I'm banning blacks.

Not if it is your intent.

 

[laughing dog]

Here is an example of a potential terrorist this patriotic ban has prevented from entering the United States - http://www.nbcnews.com/video/syrian-boy-with-cancer-in-limbo-after-trump-executive-order-865436227985. It is exactly this kind of utter stupidity (denying entry to a 7 year old trying to come for cancer treatment) that stains the international reputation of the US.

 

[fast]

If I openly express my full intent to prevent blacks in my town from entering my restaurant and erect a sign (sign 1) saying "no blacks allowed" and find that it is illegal and subsequently forced to take it down, then if I espouse my full intent to find an alternative work around and discover that only blacks in my town make less than 30k per year and erect another sign (sign 2) saying "no one making under 30k a year allowed," then characterizing my new sign as racist needs to be done with astute distinction.

The new sign (regardless of my true end goal) is not (by the words on it) a direct ban on blacks. I'm effectively achieving my goal (because of the correlation between blacks and income in my particular town), but a ban having an alternative effect is not a true ban on alternatives but rather a ban on precisely what is expressed. It's a technical inaccuracy to say I'm banning blacks.

Not if it is your intent.

But my intent is independent of the meaning of words expressed.

Edited to add: I originally intended to ban them, but I failed in my attempt to ban them, so in order to achieve the larger goal of keeping them out, I focused my ban on an entirely different group and banned that group instead.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Characterizing the EO as a "ban targeting Muslims" would still be an inaccurate characterization of the EO, since the EO bans Muslims and non-Muslims in 7 countries.

I'd characterize it as a ban of people from Muslim predominate countries that Trump does not do business with.

How would you characterize it?

Then if that is the case you can't call him an unconventional politician. It could be true if the reason begins with O and ends in L

- - - Updated - - -

Russian counterpart. Riiiight...

Where?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Not if it is your intent.

But my intent is independent of the meaning of words expressed.

Edited to add: I originally intended to ban them, but I failed in my attempt to ban them, so in order to achieve the larger goal of keeping them out, I focused my ban on an entirely different group and banned that group instead.

The last part makes no sense because it's not an entirely different group, it's a subset.

 

[James Madison]

Characterizing the EO as a "ban targeting Muslims" would still be an inaccurate characterization of the EO, since the EO bans Muslims and non-Muslims in 7 countries.

I'd characterize it as a ban of people from Muslim predominate countries that Trump does not do business with.

How would you characterize it?

Accurate characterization.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Characterizing the EO as a "ban targeting Muslims" would still be an inaccurate characterization of the EO, since the EO bans Muslims and non-Muslims in 7 countries.

It is not inaccurate if that is the intent.

The intent cannot rewrite or reword what the text of the EO says and it is the text of the EO that is paramount in assessing whether a characterization of the EO is accurate.

The intent is useful, along with other facts, in achieving perhaps a different goal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fast]

But my intent is independent of the meaning of words expressed.

Edited to add: I originally intended to ban them, but I failed in my attempt to ban them, so in order to achieve the larger goal of keeping them out, I focused my ban on an entirely different group and banned that group instead.

The last part makes no sense because it's not an entirely different group, it's a subset.

Maybe I shouldn't have said, "entirely," but it's a different group. It's a group specifically referencing income, and income isn't a subset of race. It just so happens that in my town, banning the acceptably banable group helps me achieve my goal without using language that targets the group that we cannot permissibly ban.

This is Trump saying there's more than one way to skin a cat. If we can't legally ban Muslims, we'll figure out something else we can do that'll help us towards our goal. And, that's what he did. He found a work around. Next, the liberals are going to say he created an executive order banning Muslims. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if trump himself said he was banning them, but when everyone looks at the executive order, what we find isn't a directive of that sort. Yeah, it just so happens to keep some out, but we shouldn't ascribe his intent to the reading of the order.

If I say, "no one under 5'9" allowed," are you going say that I'm discriminating on height, or are you going to say I'm discriminating against women? Even if my intent to keep out women is known, the sign says something else.

 

[laughing dog]

It is not inaccurate if that is the intent.

The intent cannot rewrite or reword what the text of the EO says and it is the text of the EO that is paramount in assessing whether a characterization of the EO is accurate.

Not if you know the intent.

T

 

[laughing dog]

Not if it is your intent.

But my intent is independent of the meaning of words expressed.

Logically, that is true no matter what is written. So what do you think you are showing?

 

[fast]

But my intent is independent of the meaning of words expressed.

Logically, that is true no matter what is written. So what do you think you are showing?

That he circumvented the law to get what he wants. If I say I'm going to ban children but permissibly can't do so and instead ban people by height, then the ban is actually against people of a particular height and not an actual ban against children. It might have the same effect as a ban against children, but what the ban is is a function of how it's worded, not on what other effects it might have.

 

[Trausti]

Islamophobes!

Kuwait issues its own Trump-esque visa ban for five Muslim-majority countries

 

[laughing dog]

Logically, that is true no matter what is written. So what do you think you are showing?

That he circumvented the law to get what he wants. If I say I'm going to ban children but permissibly can't do so and instead ban people by height, then the ban is actually against people of a particular height and not an actual ban against children. It might have the same effect as a ban against children, but what the ban is is a function of how it's worded, not on what other effects it might have.

Nope. Intent is important. If the intent is known, then the wording is not important.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Just because more than your targets were affected doesn't mean you weren't targeting. The non-Muslims are just collateral damage.

If I openly express my full intent to prevent blacks in my town from entering my restaurant and erect a sign (sign 1) saying "no blacks allowed" and find that it is illegal and subsequently forced to take it down, then if I espouse my full intent to find an alternative work around and discover that only blacks in my town make less than 30k per year and erect another sign (sign 2) saying "no one making under 30k a year allowed," then characterizing my new sign as racist needs to be done with astute distinction.

The new sign (regardless of my true end goal) is not (by the words on it) a direct ban on blacks. I'm effectively achieving my goal (because of the correlation between blacks and income in my particular town), but a ban having an alternative effect is not a true ban on alternatives but rather a ban on precisely what is expressed. It's a technical inaccuracy to say I'm banning blacks.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where semantic technicality does not the truth make. Trump knows all about marketing and the power of marketing. He lost this one. His EO got marketed as a "Muslim ban" and he's going to have a hard time dissuading many people of that, especially because he started this whole mess by saying he wanted to ban Muslims, even though the great majority of the world's Muslims are not affected by the travel restrictions.