It's such a small percentage compared to the rest of the candies and given people's gambling addictions many would take the chance. Maybe we should stop comparing living breathing people to candies for terrible analogies.
The very basis of both analogies is flawed.
Unlike candies, people have cues, warning signs, and red flags.
Rather than gambling, slowing down and assessing people would be much safer.
The 2nd one is flawed in a number of ways but not only in morals but also statistics, the ratio of terrorist pretending to be refugees and actual refugees is about 1 to 740,000 (if I remember properly)
And scaled to if it were the same amount of people, what would be the monster to normal ratio for men ?
Because flawed morality is also taking play in the first one
Okay, so, in the first one, you're talking about not *dating* somebody, something without which they are not terribly likely to die. In the second one, you're talking about not *insisting they live in an active war zone,* without which - yes, there's a pretty definitively nonzero chance they'll die.
The first one is basically saying 10% of men are monsters so you should treat them all as such
The second one wanting to be careful about who you let into a country that has suffered terrible attacks recently so they don't want to let anyone in willy nilly just because of a war, it's dangerous to just let people in. It's preventative measures to look out for our own citizens because if we can't even protect our own citizens then why should we let a fuckton of refugees in to add another possibility of danger ?
Nobody's talking about locking men up. They're talking about how, if a woman agrees to spend time with you, it's a big risk. Respect it. I've dated four people - ever - and it still did not prevent my sexual assault by one of them.
To the second half - we let them in *because* they're refugees nobody else wants. That's literally the American identity, we're everybody else's unwanted refugees. And I think we've had enough incidents to prove our homegrown Americans are drastically more radicalized and more of a danger to us than our *scrupulously vetted* refugee immigrants are likely to be.
Let's say there are 150 presidential candidates (didn't feel like counting all of them) and 2 of them are well known through eccentric media for their unprofessional behaviors and entertainment value, 6 are mildly known on the media and review their polical plans openly, the rest are all but ignored by the media. If only 10 candidates make it on the ballot in all 50 states what are the odds of another congressional strike"
Take this back 80 so years ago, slap the Nazi party over the word trump and bam. You have propaganda against Jews. Or on the other side, slap the American government on it and replace Syrian refugees with Japanese people. And now you have propaganda for internment camps.
Not entirely sure what you mean by.. 'the fuck'. In case you need further explanation. My point is that this analogy can literally be attached to any group trying to suppress another throughout history.
Let's say you have a thousand babies, and you're told one or two of them are going to grow into homicidal maniacs. Do you risk it, or do you wipe them all out?
Not so easy when you don't reduce human beings to fucking candy now, is it?
Now, as bad as these analogies are, the second one AT LEAST (IF YOU STRETCH IT A LITTLTE) expressed a point that could be considered somewhat valid. The first is simply idiotic in every imaginable way.
Unlike candies, people have cues, warning signs, and red flags.
Rather than gambling, slowing down and assessing people would be much safer.
Because flawed morality is also taking play in the first one
The second one wanting to be careful about who you let into a country that has suffered terrible attacks recently so they don't want to let anyone in willy nilly just because of a war, it's dangerous to just let people in. It's preventative measures to look out for our own citizens because if we can't even protect our own citizens then why should we let a fuckton of refugees in to add another possibility of danger ?
To the second half - we let them in *because* they're refugees nobody else wants. That's literally the American identity, we're everybody else's unwanted refugees. And I think we've had enough incidents to prove our homegrown Americans are drastically more radicalized and more of a danger to us than our *scrupulously vetted* refugee immigrants are likely to be.
Not so easy when you don't reduce human beings to fucking candy now, is it?