trump junior and his twitter fail

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not offended like Grambler is offended about men being m&m's.

It's dumb to compare refugees to a bowl of candy - it's a lot more complicated than just throwing a bowl of skittles away.

So what is the problem then? You think it's dumb, I think it's genius. Only crazy people think Trump Jr was literally comparing Syrians to Skittles.

originally posted by: kaylaluv


Thank you! You get it!

Its not me getting it I am worried about.

If you use the analogy for gun owners, then you are advocating taking away their constitutional rights (pretty important, no?)

Ok, let me try this again. I do not think you are upset about the skittle analogy, I think you are upset about Trumps immigration policy.

The skittles analogy is dumb not because we should leave refugees in, but because it is just a dumb analogy.

If I say murderers are poopoo heads, that is dumb. Not because murderers are in fact good, but because the term poopoo head is stupid.

If you use the analogy for refugees, then you are advocating refusing them life-saving sanctuary (pretty important, no?)

Not that it is even relevant to this discussion, but you are incorrect here. Is your claim if we do not take these refugees, they are guaranteed to die? That is not true.

I know a person with a terrible illness that they can't afford to treat. If you do not pay for their medical expenses Kayla, they will die! Are you going to be so heartless as to cause the death of this person?

If you use the analogy for women who feel they have to be wary of all men, then you are hurting men's feelings (hmmm)

Ok so hurting someones feelings in no big deal. So if I chose to be racists to blacks and avoid them and think they are all potentially violent, that is no big deal because I am just hurting their feelings.

Oh and I notice that you keep ignoring how you said Trump Jr. was suggesting shooting refugees on the spot. Still waiting for a link on that.

a reply to: UKTruth

Good lord --- you throw a bowl of skittles away because a few of them might be poisoned - that's no big deal - it's just skittles. You refuse life-saving sanctuary to all Syrian refugees - you are talking about HUMAN LIVES. You can't use that simplified an analogy. It just doesn't work.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Good lord --- you throw a bowl of skittles away because a few of them might be poisoned - that's no big deal - it's just skittles. You refuse life-saving sanctuary to all Syrian refugees - you are talking about HUMAN LIVES. You can't use that simplified an analogy. It just doesn't work.

Really? He was not literally comparing Syrians to skittles, for heavens sake.
It's an analogy. If the message you took out was that he thinks skittles are as important as people then you spectacularly missed the point of the analogy (in fact every analogy ever made).

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not offended like Grambler is offended about men being m&m's.

It's dumb to compare refugees to a bowl of candy - it's a lot more complicated than just throwing a bowl of skittles away.

Ha! I am not offended at all!

I am pointing out that the skittles reference and the m&m one are doing the same thing, and this is equally offensive. I am offended zero by either of them.

The reason that this story got legs wasn't people were upset over Trump Jr. refugee policy, it was that he was comparing humans to candy.

Many people in the media were foaming at the mouth at how offensive it was for trump to compare human beings to candy, yet were perfectly fine with feminists doing this to men.

You claim the skittles one is somehow more harmful. I think that is dumb. Comparing one group to candy is the exact same as comparing another group to candy.

Again, you don't have a problem with the candy analogy, you have a problem with the refugee policy.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Good lord --- you throw a bowl of skittles away because a few of them might be poisoned - that's no big deal - it's just skittles. You refuse life-saving sanctuary to all Syrian refugees - you are talking about HUMAN LIVES. You can't use that simplified an analogy. It just doesn't work.

And if one of those refugees goes on a rampage and shoots up an elementary school or gets into a semi truck and drives over a 4th of July parade ... are you going to be the person making that excuse to the families of the victims?

"Well see, your family got to die so that refugee over there had a better chance of living ..."

originally posted by: Grambler


Ok, let me try this again. I do not think you are upset about the skittle analogy, I think you are upset about Trumps immigration policy.

The skittles analogy is dumb not because we should leave refugees in, but because it is just a dumb analogy.

Why yes, I'm pissed off about both the analogy and the policy. The analogy makes it seem like it's no big deal to refuse sanctuary to suffering human beings. This makes it so much easier for the low-information voters to go right along with it. After all, it's only skittles and skittles don't suffer. That makes the analogy a very harmful one, affecting people's lives.

Not that it is even relevant to this discussion, but you are incorrect here. Is your claim if we do not take these refugees, they are guaranteed to die? That is not true.

I know a person with a terrible illness that they can't afford to treat. If you do not pay for their medical expenses Kayla, they will die! Are you going to be so heartless as to cause the death of this person?

If I am a doctor and all the other doctors are too busy with other patients, and someone with a terrible illness comes to me for life-saving treatment, what will probably happen to that person if I refuse to treat them by saying, "not my problem"?

Ok so hurting someones feelings in no big deal. So if I chose to be racists to blacks and avoid them and think they are all potentially violent, that is no big deal because I am just hurting their feelings.

Well I didn't say no big deal, just not as critical as someone's life. I could care less if you wanted to avoid blacks. I would care a whole lot more if you beat them or lynched them or if you gave them unequal treatment under the laws.

Oh and I notice that you keep ignoring how you said Trump Jr. was suggesting shooting refugees on the spot. Still waiting for a link on that.

Never said it. You were using hyperbole to position the women m&m deal as just as horrible as refusing life-saving sanctuary to refugees. I said the women weren't wanting to do anything to endanger innocent men's lives even if they feared them (shooting them was just an example of endangering their lives). But, I know you are intelligent enough to know exactly what I meant.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Good lord --- you throw a bowl of skittles away because a few of them might be poisoned - that's no big deal - it's just skittles. You refuse life-saving sanctuary to all Syrian refugees - you are talking about HUMAN LIVES. You can't use that simplified an analogy. It just doesn't work.

And if one of those refugees goes on a rampage and shoots up an elementary school or gets into a semi truck and drives over a 4th of July parade ... are you going to be the person making that excuse to the families of the victims?

"Well see, your family got to die so that refugee over there had a better chance of living ..."

And if a gun owner goes on a rampage and shoots up an elementary school... are you going to be the person making the excuse to the parents of those kids?

"Well, your kids got to die so I could have easy access to my guns..."

a reply to: kaylaluv

Why yes, I'm pissed off about both the analogy and the policy. The analogy makes it seem like it's no big deal to refuse sanctuary to suffering human beings. This makes it so much easier for the low-information voters to go right along with it. After all, it's only skittles and skittles don't suffer. That makes the analogy a very harmful one, affecting people's lives.

Right because as we all know, anyone who could entertain voting for Trump is just an idiotic deplorable.

As if most people are that stupid as to think refugees are just so much candy. That's just a handy excuse.

a reply to: ketsuko

And the analogy of skittles is just an easy excuse to be Islamaphobic.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

And the analogy of skittles is just an easy excuse to be Islamaphobic.

I have come round. I do think this was very insensitive to people who identify as Skittles.

originally posted by: kaylaluv



Why yes, I'm pissed off about both the analogy and the policy. The analogy makes it seem like it's no big deal to refuse sanctuary to suffering human beings. This makes it so much easier for the low-information voters to go right along with it. After all, it's only skittles and skittles don't suffer. That makes the analogy a very harmful one, affecting people's lives.

But how can't you see that the m&m analogy does the same thing, catering to low information people. Go ahead and dehumanize those m&ms, they are only candy.

And stop pretending you don't understand an analogy. Do you freak out when someone says a few bad apples? This faux outrage is unbecoming.

If I am a doctor and all the other doctors are too busy with other patients, and someone with a terrible illness comes to me for life-saving treatment, what will probably happen to that person if I refuse to treat them by saying, "not my problem"?

Why change it around? I am not talking hypothetically, I am speaking literally. Are you going to leave the person I know die because they can't pay their medical bills?

By changing the question, you are making excuses for why my friend has to die. I will be sure to let them know you feel bad, and if you were the last doctor around, you would help them. I am sure that will comfort them as they die.

How is what you did here any different than America saying, "Well, if there was no where else to go, and if we knew with 100% probability they would be killed if they had to stay in their country, and if we were 100% sure they were all peace loving people, then yes we would take them".

Never said it. You were using hyperbole to position the women m&m deal as just as horrible as refusing life-saving sanctuary to refugees. I said the women weren't wanting to do anything to endanger innocent men's lives even if they feared them (shooting them was just an example of endangering their lives). But, I know you are intelligent enough to know exactly what I meant.

And this is literally the most ironic post of the day. You were just making an ANALOGY about shooting syrians. Ha Ha Ha!!!! OK your analogy is acceptable, and you know I am intelligent enough to understand!!!! Yet you feign ignorance on Trump Jr. analogy!!!

Priceless!!

Jesus, my kids have both put some stupid things up on Facebook and Twitter before. Does that make me an idiot, too?

a reply to: Grambler

Human lives vs butthurt feelings. Not in the same ball park at all.

We can never be 100% sure that someone isn't going to do bad things. So we mitigate as much as we can (laws with punishments, vetting processes, etc.), rather than to punish everyone who isn't going to do bad things - and by punish, I mean refuse life-saving sanctuary ( or remove constitutional rights to bear arms for the gun analogy).

No, I wasn't making an analogy about shooting syrians. Are you going to make me take back what I said about you??? The m&m analogy is not in the same category as the skittle analogy. Butthurt feelings vs. human lives.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It does if your kids are officially representing you when you are running for president. But you raise a good point. What does Trump sr. think of the analogy? Based on his past comments, something tells me he thinks it's pretty genius...

I agree with his statements and with the racial profiling. It is the truth, no matter how hard it is to swallow for the liberal SJW's. We all know from history, that people of the non-caucasian not including asian persuasion have a higher tendency to commit violent crimes. Whether it be rape, murder, armed robbery, riots, rape, and rape.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

Human lives vs butthurt feelings. Not in the same ball park at all.

We can never be 100% sure that someone isn't going to do bad things. So we mitigate as much as we can (laws with punishments, vetting processes, etc.), rather than to punish everyone who isn't going to do bad things - and by punish, I mean refuse life-saving sanctuary ( or remove constitutional rights to bear arms for the gun analogy).

Well said kaylaluv. Well said. If only everyone on here was as mature as you.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Jesus, my kids have both put some stupid things up on Facebook and Twitter before. Does that make me an idiot, too?

If your kids were instrumental in you getting a promotion, then yes. Also worth remembering that Trumps children are in no way kids

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

Human lives vs butthurt feelings. Not in the same ball park at all.

We can never be 100% sure that someone isn't going to do bad things. So we mitigate as much as we can (laws with punishments, vetting processes, etc.), rather than to punish everyone who isn't going to do bad things - and by punish, I mean refuse life-saving sanctuary ( or remove constitutional rights to bear arms for the gun analogy).

No, I wasn't making an analogy about shooting syrians. Are you going to make me take back what I said about you??? The m&m analogy is not in the same category as the skittle analogy. Butthurt feelings vs. human lives.

I feel like you ignored parts of my post, but thats ok.

I will sum up with this, either comparing people to candy is offensive in all cases, or none. It does not matter what you are using that comparison for.

If you hate the refugee policy of Trump, good for you. I do not think the candy reference makes his policy more or less repugnant. Either you like the policy, or not. If you are swayed based on a candy metaphor, or find it more offensive because of this, then you may need to take a deep breath.

I feel that is as productive as it is going to get with this conversation.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

And the analogy of skittles is just an easy excuse to be Islamaphobic.

Nope, more like terroristphobic.

Of course, pay no attention to the fact that no one is advocating against the Muslims who live here. Don't they deserve to be safe from terrorists too?