Boy, you are either not able to read or just blatantly lie. Nowhere I say what you are saying I said. Now I understand why decent users have you in ignore. It is fun to poke you sometimes, but you are not for serious debates.
Trump to ban all immigration from third world countries
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
Sorry guys, but Franky's lies and some repetitiveness make it no fun anymore 
. I am out 
. I hope everyone had fun participating in this debates
. I am out . I hope everyone had fun participating in this debates 
That's not mind-boggling.
"Pull up the ladder behind me" is very common.
That's because this is rationalization.
He is choosing to weight factors he feels justifies his position.
This is what normally happens when people talk about things being "rational".
Since you two are working from different priors and to different goals, you will always be talking past one another.
True for everyone here unless you are indigenous, really.
I guess due to Ilan Omar, Trump has decided he hates all Somali immigrants. He really is the comment section of any Twitter thread.
First on CNN: DHS recommends travel ban list include at least 10 more countries following DC shooting
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is recommending that the Trump administration’s travel ban list include between 30 to 32 countries, marking an increase from the current list of 19 countries, according to a source familiar with the matter.
First on CNN: DHS recommends travel ban list include at least 10 more countries following DC shooting
Priscilla Alvarez, CNN
Tue, December 2, 2025 at 10:02 p.m. EST
3 min read
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem attends a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House, on November 17, 2025. - Evan Vucci/AP/File
Note: Article has been edited for length. Full article at link above
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is recommending that the Trump administration’s travel ban list include between 30 to 32 countries, marking an increase from the current list of 19 countries, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Noem said Monday that, following a meeting with President Donald Trump, she recommended a “full travel ban” on “every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.”
The current list of 19 countries with full or partial restrictions include Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
Trump has also threatened to “permanently pause” migration from what he called “third-world countries,” without specifying which countries he was referring to — a move Noem defended on Sunday.
That is how I expected them to try and rinse this.First on CNN: DHS recommends travel ban list include at least 10 more countries following DC shooting
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is recommending that the Trump administration’s travel ban list include between 30 to 32 countries, marking an increase from the current list of 19 countries, according to a source familiar with the matter.ca.news.yahoo.com
Mount Olympus, this was my great, great great great Granpappi after he banged all the prostitutes.
I could not miss the opportunity to comment on this one, so I am back
. But I promise to get away when it becomes too boring here. Thank you, Valzazar, for making this comment which allowed me to offer an example where "pull up the ladder behind me" is completely rational and maximizes your own utility first and after such maximization is done, also maximizes the total utility of everybody.Example: Titanic and lifeboats
1) There is no space for everyone to get on the lifeboats. Thus, if everyone were allowed to climb on them, the boats would go down, and everyone would die
2) It is not clear what the maximum number of people can climb on each lifeboat before it will go down for sure, but the more people climb, the higher the chance it will go down
3) When the probability in (2) is sufficiently large (say, above 10%), it is best for everyone on the boat not to let anyone else on the boat
4) For anyone in the water, it is best to climb on the boat
5) Once a person climbs on the boat, it becomes better for him not to let anyone else on that boat. Note that now his incentives become aligned with other people on that boat
Analogy:
Boat = Canada
People on the boat = current Canadian citizens and permanent residents
People in the cold water = people in third-world countries (except the rich ones)
We can extend this example by assuming there are some people in the cold water who come with their own inflatable boats that they did not have time to inflate, but once they climb, they will inflate them and that new boat can take several people from the original boat, reducing the probability that it will go down. The analogy will be high-skilled people. Unfortunately, it is too costly to check if the person has that inflatable boat with him before he climbs. However, we can look at whether a person carries a backpack while still in the water. We have no idea if he is just an idiot who tries to bring his belongings with him, or if he is so determined to keep his backpack because there is a floating device in it. So, we can let people with the backpacks on our lifeboats even if we have no time to check what is inside. Analogy: backpack = work experience, education, or simply country of origin
And a response to Franky about where he lied: when I replied to your post saying you are lying (see post #101), I specifically made it in bold the part of your statement where you lied. To avoid looking ignorant, next time, please, read before you reply.
I think you've made your utilitarian ethics very clear.I could not miss the opportunity to comment on this one, so I am back
Example: Titanic and lifeboats
1) There is no space for everyone to get on the lifeboats. Thus, if everyone were allowed to climb on them, the boats would go down, and everyone would die
2) It is not clear what the maximum number of people can climb on each lifeboat before it will go down for sure, but the more people climb, the higher the chance it will go down
3) When the probability in (2) is sufficiently large (say, above 10%), it is best for everyone on the boat not to let anyone else on the boat
4) For anyone in the water, it is best to climb on the boat
5) Once a person climbs on the boat, it becomes better for him not to let anyone else on that boat. Note that now his incentives become aligned with other people on that boat
Analogy:
Boat = Canada
People on the boat = current Canadian citizens and permanent residents
People in the cold water = people in third-world countries (except the rich ones)
We can extend this example by assuming there are some people in the cold water who come with their own inflatable boats that they did not have time to inflate, but once they climb, they will inflate them and that new boat can take several people from the original boat, reducing the probability that it will go down. The analogy will be high-skilled people. Unfortunately, it is too costly to check if the person has that inflatable boat with him before he climbs. However, we can look at whether a person carries a backpack while still in the water. We have no idea if he is just an idiot who tries to bring his belongings with him, or if he is so determined to keep his backpack because there is a floating device in it. So, we can let people with the backpacks on our lifeboats even if we have no time to check what is inside. Analogy: backpack = work experience, education, or simply country of origin
And a response to Franky about where he lied: when I replied to your post saying you are lying (see post #101), I specifically made it in bold the part of your statement where you lied. To avoid looking ignorant, next time, please, read before you reply.
That's not a lie, that's my statement about what I believe you are doing. I didn't say you said it, I said that's what I think you are arguing.
Since you are a more recent immigrant, I assume you would accept that if those of us who have been here longer decided that recent immigrants should be forced to leave you'd go peacefully and with no qualms?
You forgot the part where you are preventing people from getting on the huge ass lifeboat based on their race. That is more relevant to the US government banning all immigration from third world countries.
That's easy.
* Statistically, black people in the US are less likely to be able to swim.
* People who can't swim are easier to prevent getting on the lifeboat once it is in the water.
* Keeping black people off the lifeboats increases your chances of survival.
The great thing about using utilitarian ethics is that you can rationalize any behavior you want if you think about it for a little bit, all while claiming to be perfectly rational.
What about if you're on the lifeboat and right before your son and daughter are about to get in, Trump says, THAT'S IT, NO MORE, CUT THE ROPE TO THE LADDER NOW!!!!!!I could not miss the opportunity to comment on this one, so I am back
Example: Titanic and lifeboats
1) There is no space for everyone to get on the lifeboats. Thus, if everyone were allowed to climb on them, the boats would go down, and everyone would die
2) It is not clear what the maximum number of people can climb on each lifeboat before it will go down for sure, but the more people climb, the higher the chance it will go down
3) When the probability in (2) is sufficiently large (say, above 10%), it is best for everyone on the boat not to let anyone else on the boat
4) For anyone in the water, it is best to climb on the boat
5) Once a person climbs on the boat, it becomes better for him not to let anyone else on that boat. Note that now his incentives become aligned with other people on that boat
Analogy:
Boat = Canada
People on the boat = current Canadian citizens and permanent residents
People in the cold water = people in third-world countries (except the rich ones)
We can extend this example by assuming there are some people in the cold water who come with their own inflatable boats that they did not have time to inflate, but once they climb, they will inflate them and that new boat can take several people from the original boat, reducing the probability that it will go down. The analogy will be high-skilled people. Unfortunately, it is too costly to check if the person has that inflatable boat with him before he climbs. However, we can look at whether a person carries a backpack while still in the water. We have no idea if he is just an idiot who tries to bring his belongings with him, or if he is so determined to keep his backpack because there is a floating device in it. So, we can let people with the backpacks on our lifeboats even if we have no time to check what is inside. Analogy: backpack = work experience, education, or simply country of origin
And a response to Franky about where he lied: when I replied to your post saying you are lying (see post #101), I specifically made it in bold the part of your statement where you lied. To avoid looking ignorant, next time, please, read before you reply.
In other words would you close the door behind you before getting your loved ones in?
"SIR, we have a couple of kids coming in"
"THEY ARE BROWN, LET THEM DROWN
WAKE ME UP WHEN WE HIT LAND!"And yet another lie from you. go back to your post. You said I am doing it, not that you think I am doing it. Huge difference. Huge.
To the previous 3 posters: guys, it is becoming boring. You refuse to debate using formal logic. You always mix what is best for the individual (and it includes his caring for his family) with what is best for the majority of people, and you blandly assume that if something is better for the majority, then everyone should do it. And to post 117: finally, you get it. Yes, this logic is correct. And I have no idea what is "rationalization" Given a set of assumptions and logical rules, only one conclusion can be made. And it seems everybody agrees with my assumption.
What you do is silently add "fairness" and "empathy" to people's utility function, where this "fairness" and "empathy" is applied to someone you do not know personally. If you add it and put a high weight on it, then you will have communism: everybody works as hard as they can to produce products for everybody, and everything is divided equally. The issue is that people can afford to behave in such a way when they are at the top of Maslow's pyramid. Do you believe we are there?
What you do is silently add "fairness" and "empathy" to people's utility function, where this "fairness" and "empathy" is applied to someone you do not know personally. If you add it and put a high weight on it, then you will have communism: everybody works as hard as they can to produce products for everybody, and everything is divided equally. The issue is that people can afford to behave in such a way when they are at the top of Maslow's pyramid. Do you believe we are there?
