Trump Jr's skittles analogy causes a social media stir.

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just saw this response on Facebook:

    "If I gave you a bowl of skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?"
    "Are the other skittles human lives?"
    "What?"
    "Like. Is there a good chance. A really good chance. I would be saving someone from a war zone and probably their life if I ate a skittle?"
    "Well sure. But the point-"
    "I would eat the skittles."
    "Ok-well the point is-"
    "I would GORGE myself on skittles. I would eat every single ****ing skittle I could find. I would STUFF myself with skittles. And when I found the poison skittle and died I would make sure to leave behind a legacy of children and of friends who also ate skittle after skittle until there were no skittles to be eaten. And each person who found the poison skittle we would weep for. We would weep for their loss, for their sacrifice, and for the fact that they did not let themselves succumb to fear but made the world a better place by eating skittles.
    Because your REAL question...the one you hid behind a *****y little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor is, IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND TERRIFIED CHILDREN...
    ... and what kind of monster would think the answer to that question... is yes?"
    Pretty persuasive response imo.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I always preferred sour skittles to be honest with you. Especially the pink ones.
    Sour skittles are the best. Might chance being poisoned for those.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    EXTRACT:

    "When Donald Trump Jr. compared Syrian refugees to poisoned Skittles, the condemnation was swift — critics called the tweet glib, dehumanizing, inaccurate, cruel.

    Turns out they could have called it something else: copyright infringement."


    read on in this article.....

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...former-refugee
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The problem with the analogy is obvious - refugees are people with rights, not skittles. There's no question of whether we have a moral or legal obligation to eat skittles.
    :rofl:

    Yeah. The analogy is crap. Firstly the odds of being raped should be much much lower. I'm pretty sure I have never actually seen a refugee first hand from Syria in this country ever. Secondly you have to take into account that these are humans not flipping skittles. When you deny them access you are dooming children etc. You have to way it all up.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's not a good analogy though because it can equally apply to driving. In fact far more people are killed in road traffic accidents than from refugees, should we ban driving?
    Driving helps the citizens of the country, so not really comparable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by renphobia)
    i like how this is the analogy he applies to syrian refugees (including children) but not guns? lmao
    Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wait. So this isn't about skittles.
    And I think this would be better if it were about M&Ms. I'd take every M&M regardless
    I live life on the edge, folks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
    Guns make it incredibly easy for bad people to kill huge amounts of people very quickly.

    The exact same logic applies to guns as to skittles in this analogy. If you banned people's access to guns you would have a lot less deaths in America.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by World_Federalism)
    And this is completely ignoring the fact that refugees/immigrants as a result of the migrant crisis have killed ZERO American citizens.
    Yet...

    Obama wants to admit several dozens of thousands Syrians in the USA. They will be probably vetted, so no terrorist will hide among them, but some, or their sons, may become radicalised once arrived.

    We'll know whether it was a good idea for the USA to admit so many Syrians in the next two or three decades. So far Afghan/Pakistani immigration seem to produce a anormal number of terrorists - even though they have only gone on rampage several years or even generations after their arrival.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Driving helps the citizens of the country, so not really comparable.
    *
    *So you're willing for people to be killed by drivers simply because driving is convenient for you?*

    How selfish.

    How about alcohol which often leads to assaults being committed, should we ban that?

    Also some husbands will abuse their wives, should we therefore not allow any men to marry women?


    It's a terrible logic. Note I am not saying we should or should not take refugees, that's up to you to make your mind on. However this analogy could apply to virtually anything in which there is a risk of death to someone and that includes an awful lot.*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    *
    *So you're willing for people to be killed by drivers simply because driving is convenient for you?*

    How selfish.

    How about alcohol which often leads to assaults being committed, should we ban that?

    Also some husbands will abuse their wives, should we therefore not allow any men to marry women?


    It's a terrible logic. Note I am not saying we should or should not take refugees, that's up to you to make your mind on. However this analogy could apply to virtually anything in which there is a risk of death to someone and that includes an awful lot.*
    No, I think a government should serve the people who pay for it to exist so that it can serve them, first and foremost.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    There's no constitutional right to refugees.
    The debate around guns focuses on whether people should or shouldn't have the right to bear arms.*It's meaningless to say "we should be allowed guns because we're already allowed guns". *
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    No, I think a government should serve the people who pay for it to exist so that it can serve them, first and foremost.
    Which has nothing to do with the thread.

    You are supporting the analogy which states we should not let refugees in because a few might be bad. That analogy can apply to driving. In fact far more people die from road traffic accidents than do from refugees.

    Why don't we apply the same logic? If you are so concerned about people suffering*then why do you support allowing driving which is virtually guaranteed to kill many people every year?*

    Why can the same analogy not apply to alcohol? Do you think people deserve to be assaulted just so you can get pissed?

    Your argument is that we shouldn't do something if there is a chance that some people will suffer as a result yet you fail to apply that consistently.


    So please tell me why driving should be allowed, given that you know it will cause many people to suffer as a result.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The analogy is stupid.

    Nobody cares whether you eat the skittles or not, it doesn't help or harm anybody else either way.
    Accepting vs. rejecting a refugee can potentially be the difference between saving someone's life and letting them die.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by richpanda)
    What's funny is that the skittles analogy started out as a feminist campaign, saying something along the lines of 'imagine all these skittles are men, if a few are poisoned would you still eat them', implying all men are rapists etc..
    The regressive left and regressive right are more similar than they are different tbh.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Do you have any particular reason to hold that current international refugee law is outdated or inapplicable here?
    Yes.

    The 1951 Convention was written specifically in relation to past refugee crises, primarily that resulting from WWII. It did not apply to persons becoming refugees after that date. Essentially it was written to deal with a problem whose size, location and circumstances were known.

    Only in 1967 was the Convention extended to refugees in the period 1951-67 and looking forward from 1967. It was written prior to the 6 Day War.

    However since 1967 there have been major changes in the composition of refugee populations which mean that the 1951 and 1967 Conventions would never have been enacted in their present form.

    1 Ethnic cleansing by expulsion is a new phenomenon; not seen in Europe for centuries. The Refugee Convention encourages it.

    2 Many refugees derive from failed states effectively rendering entire populations (a) eligible and (b) free to move

    3 Organised cross-border people smuggling was not previously a significant factor in refugee flows

    4 Partly due to (3) the mobility of refugees has vastly increased meaning a system designed for third countries to relieve camps set up immediately inside the borders of nearest safe countries no longer operates satisfactorily because those third countries are receiving their own direct refugee flows

    5 Refugee status is being claimed as a device to prevent the deportation of illegal entrants/overstayers

    6 The previous assumption that refugees would only seek to subvert the governments from which they were fleeing, is no longer accurate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by World_Federalism)
    Good, because his analogy is entirely wrong.

    The ratios are wrong, a more accurate interpretation would be "I have a bowl of 30 skittles, and 0.001 of them will kill you".
    The skittles killing the eater is incomparable to a handful of migrants killing some American citizens - it implies that America dies because of a few migrants, it doesn't - 9/11 showed that 2,996 people can die and America still lives on.

    And this is completely ignoring the fact that refugees/immigrants as a result of the migrant crisis have killed ZERO American citizens. The San Bernardino shooting was done by American citizens, and the recent bombing in NYC was done by people who had immigrated decades before. Omar Mateen was also born in the USA. Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric does not account for home-grown extremists.
    America has the choice of what immigrants they want to bring in.

    Muslims tend to integrate poorly and extremism/conservativism is present in some aspects of the community.

    Why would they want citizens like that if there's more suitable immigrants they can take?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
    i'm just gonna assume you agree with trump jr's analogy so;;

    sure, but give someone a cucumber and ask them to kill someone it's going to be a lot more difficult. guns give people the power to kill people more effectively. that's why the rate of mass shootings in america is so high compared to places with gun laws. people do kill people, yes obviously, but guns make it so much easier.
    between 2000-2014 the us had approx 135 mass shootings - whereas the uk had 1. you cannot say 'guns don't kill people' to these figures. people kill people WITH guns.
    your argument is so invalid. look up any statistic that compares the amount of terror attacks in the usa versus the amount of mass shootings by us citizens. it's wrong to say that refugees are the biggest threat here.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 22, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.