Mayor Peduto Wants The Syrian Refugees To Come To Pittsburgh (buy, legal)

[BigPizzaHutFan]

Somewhere, a long-dead man who came to the US as a penniless immigrant is spinning in his grave.

[Der Schwabe]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As a father whose two-year-old son currently has stage four cancer, I find this whole line of argument incredibly offensive.

eschaton - sorry that I missed this earlier, but my thoughts and prayers are with you. I hope he makes a speedy recovery.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Merge

The "Daily Caller"? What's that? Never heard of it. Who's the publisher? Where is it based out of? Whose blog is that?

Oh wait... founded by the Chief Policy Advisor to Dick Cheney. That's a credible source right there!

I hate to say it, but attacking the source of an argument rather than the argument itself is a common logical fallacy known as an ad hominem.

I could post responses from many news sources to this claim, but I am afraid the response will be another ad hominem by someone else. So instead I'll link to an article from Reason, a right-libertarian publication.

The article makes some particularly good points which are missed in the current national fervor - we have accepted tens of thousands of refugees from Somalia and Iraq over the recent period - failed states which have extensive operations from Al Qaeda and ISIS respectively. Yet there was no public outcry, and apparently none of these refugees have engaged in terrorist activities.

[eschaton]

Also, thanks to everyone for the good thoughts. We got the diagnosis back in late September, so our son is already halfway through chemo (though he has a lot more yet to go afterwards, including surgery, stem cell transplant, radiation, and immunotherapy). I am no longer depressed about things at all, just working my way through the treatment process with my family day by day.

[Merge]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I hate to say it, but attacking the source of an argument rather than the argument itself is a common logical fallacy known as an ad hominem.

I could post responses from many news sources to this claim, but I am afraid the response will be another ad hominem by someone else. So instead I'll link to an article from Reason, a right-libertarian publication.

The article makes some particularly good points which are missed in the current national fervor - we have accepted tens of thousands of refugees from Somalia and Iraq over the recent period, which are failed states which have extensive operations from Al Qaeda and ISIS respectively. Yet there was no public outcry, and apparently none of these refugees have engaged in terrorist activities.

If the source arguably has an embedded interest in swaying its readers toward a certain POV, shouldn't that be acknowledged?

I think "consider the source" has been a useful reminder for me to understand that an argument comes from a particular perspective. I don't know that I agree that this would fall under the "ad hominem" label, since I wasn't referring to Goinback, but rather questioning the objectivity of the author of the article linked in his post.

However, I do agree that it's useful to try to keep the messenger separate from the message... and I'd agree that I can be vulnerable to the occasional slip-up along these lines. So thanks for bringing up that issue.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I hate to say it, but attacking the source of an argument rather than the argument itself is a common logical fallacy known as an ad hominem.

I could post responses from many news sources to this claim, but I am afraid the response will be another ad hominem by someone else. So instead I'll link to an article from Reason, a right-libertarian publication.

The article makes some particularly good points which are missed in the current national fervor - we have accepted tens of thousands of refugees from Somalia and Iraq over the recent period, which are failed states which have extensive operations from Al Qaeda and ISIS respectively. Yet there was no public outcry, and apparently none of these refugees have engaged in terrorist activities.

OTOH, there is also "consider the source".
Urban Dictionary: consider the source
I hate using "urban dictionary" because well, consider the source, but they explain it pretty well.
"another way of saying that any information recieved from a certain source can't be taken seriously because that source has been wrong before, or lacks credibility. "

This is especially important in science, but I think it applies even in politics.

[Goinback2011]

The source is irrelevant. The FBI director is quoted at a Congressional hearing. It was widely reported.

You just don't want that information as it isn't consistent with your programming.

Should one of these 'refugees' actually be a terrorist, the damage to Pittsburgh will go beyond that of injuries to people and destruction of property.

[BigPizzaHutFan]

On that note, why doesn't anyone refer to Dylan Roof and his ilk as terrorists? It seems like "terrorist" is a dog whistle term used to refer to a certain demographic.

There is no surefire way to keep "terrorists" out and we have and always have had plenty of homegrown "terrorists". Denying aid to those who need it because they might possibly be "terrorists" sounds pretty un-American to me.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

The source is irrelevant. The FBI director is quoted at a Congressional hearing. It was widely reported.

You just don't want that information as it isn't consistent with your programming.

Should one of these 'refugees' actually be a terrorist, the damage to Pittsburgh will go beyond that of injuries to people and destruction of property.

You didn't seem to want the results of the informal survey of my co-workers (which you asked us to take) because it didn't fit with your programming.

[Merge]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

The source is irrelevant. The FBI director is quoted at a Congressional hearing. It was widely reported.

You just don't want that information as it isn't consistent with your programming.

Should one of these 'refugees' actually be a terrorist, the damage to Pittsburgh will go beyond that of injuries to people and destruction of property.

It's ironic that you would chime in on the "ad hominem" tactic of debate since you have proved yourself quite the enthusiast.

You are the one who refuses to discuss the case on the merits and instead tries to accuse everyone who disagrees with you (not just on this issue, but EVERY issue on this board) of being government employees.

And you blabber on about "programming". Very amusing.