No Legit Argument Against Muslim Ban

I never really expect that Dan will ever change his spots...that his character will ever improve and he will behave toward others as he demands they behave for him.  That would be foolish.  But now and then, especially when lacking better things to do or the motivation to find them, I do visit his Blog of Lies and Perversions to see what Lies and Perversions he's chosen to spew since my last visit.  Often, the visit is compelled by his having visited other blogs without getting satisfaction for his nonsensical hunches, opinions and human traditions.  (He'd have to visit a lefty blog for that!)

Anyway, there's a post referenced in one of my recent posts which is tied to recent discussions where he embarrasses himself as usual.  A point of contention is his penchant for responding to intelligent, truthful and factual expressions about groups he favors with reference to alleged "past abuses and oppression".  I say "alleged" because he's never specific about what he means.  That doesn't matter as his true intention is to stifle or censor that which he cannot overcome.  Thus, he seeks to appeal to his opponent by reminding his opponent of these unnamed "past abuses and oppression", as if past abuse is relative in any way to the point raised and defended by his opponent.  Indeed, any and every criticism, regardless of  its merit, ist verboten because the group meriting that criticism was abused and/or oppressed in the past.  More so, the criticism itself is regarded by Dan as abuse and oppression, too!  

Yeah.  I know.  He's a real freaking moron.

So, as I was clarifying my position, and doing so in the most "respectful, adult" manner, he nonetheless chose to delete my comments and do his bit where he responds to out of context snippets.  He doesn't make his position any stronger by doing so, nor is he honest in the attempt because the context is missing due to his having deleted it.  Naturally, my first inclination is to again provide clarity to that which he's corrupted to posture as "morally and rationally superior", as well as to condescend and disparage.  In this case, after bouncing from one "abused and oppressed" group to another depending upon how difficult it was for him to counter the truths, facts and logic of my arguments, he fell upon islam and my position that all immigration of muslims to our nation should be suspended (and most muslims already here deported).  

In supposing that there's actually something wrong with a Christian expecting his government to deny entry to the most violent and oppressive group of people in the world, with almost 1400 years of history to back up that charge and numerous examples in the here and now around the world, Dan pretends he's the rational one for supposing we must judge each muslim individually as if his "religion" doesn't encourage the very violence and oppression I expect my government to spare us.  How does he do this?  By citing an article about who is more violent:  Christians or muslims.  He expects me to "educate" myself with this:

https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-04/body-counts

As we all know by now, Dan merely grabs whatever he thinks supports his position based on the title of the piece alone, never actually studying what he offers or vetting it for error or accuracy.  One would think at this point he'd know that I will indeed check out what he presents.  So I did.  Here is how I responded:

Once again you prove no intellectual curiosity to support your claims or objections to mine. Your "Christian Century" link does not provide such evidentiary support, and no 37-page pamphlet it references could. As is your habit, you grabbed the first piece you found which only seems to support your position without actually reviewing and researching it for accuracy. Here's what I've found:

""Body Count: A Quantitative Review of Political Violence Across World Civilizations" is highly flawed

That criticism is well-founded. The work appears to have serious methodological problems that make its headline comparisons unreliable:

---Category error: It assigns deaths to broad religious or civilizational identities, even though wars are usually driven by states, regimes, political movements, nationalism, economic interests, or strategic calculations—not simply religion.
---Problematic attribution: Counting all deaths in a war against the religion of the ruling society treats affiliation as causation. That can make ordinary civilians, opponents, and even victims appear part of a religion’s “body count.”
---Unclear definitions: “Political violence,” “religious violence,” “civilization,” and “atheist” need precise operational definitions. Especially problematic is treating ostensibly secular communist regimes as an “atheist” category while classifying other regimes by their majority religion.
---Questionable aggregation: Combining estimates across thousands of years is highly sensitive to missing records, changing population sizes, disputed casualty figures, and inconsistent historical evidence.
---Weak documentation: The bibliographic information identifies it as a short, 37-page 2009 publication, and available descriptions indicate that its estimates are rough. Public reader critiques also point to inadequate sourcing and a lack of a proper reference list—but those reviews are not themselves peer-reviewed evidence.
---Selection and confirmation bias: A framework that produces a ranked list of religions or civilizations risks beginning with the conclusion it wants to demonstrate and then fitting ambiguous cases into it.

The strongest objection is not that every number must be wrong; it is that the categories do not support the causal conclusions. At most, the study might estimate deaths occurring under governments or populations associated with particular civilizational labels. It cannot validly establish that Christianity, Islam, atheism, or any other identity “killed” a given number of people without a defensible causal model.

A better study would code specific actors and mechanisms, distinguish combatant from civilian deaths, report uncertainty ranges, preserve competing scholarly estimates, normalize by population and time period, and avoid assigning collective guilt to entire religions or civilizations."

It's you who's lacking in education, while totally devoid of sense, honesty, or Christian character.  

It's like responding to the lefty's typical pro-"gay" parenting studies!  It's just the conclusion which matters to those like Dan.  Not how the author/researcher came to it. 

But I stand by my position regarding muslims.  It's too bad that some truly good people might be denied what our country has to offer.  I don't know how we can be assured that this next muslim isn't the next guy who'll fly a plane into a building with hundreds of people in it for "allah!"  We can't be assured that a person who's faith teaches lying to further the goals of the "faith" is truly the good dude he might appear to be.  Why risk it?  My people are more important to me than any foreigner, particularly those who come from muslim majority nations.  Here's a little something which makes the point well:

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/02/know-nothings-catholic-muslim-immigration-william-kilpatrick.html

ALREADY AN UPDATE!!!! 

Wow!  I've been watching this guy a few times in recent days.  Harris Sultan, a "former" muslim, who's out of Australia, I believe, but seems to be enamored with that country as well as the U.S.A. and the U.K.  He understands what Dan pretends isn't true and isn't a concern.  He has a notion of what constitutes a "good" muslim and it's pretty much a "former" muslim.  He opposes immigration of muslims because they do not hide what they want to see happen on a global scale:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9QLybBXk6s