I described our exchange as I saw it, Scott Adams describes it his way:
My summary of that exchange is that I asked you to defend your position and you succeeded. That is rare.
I’m not suggesting the U.S. should allow Muslims to immigrate at this point in history. I’m just trying to find a market price at which folks would agree the risk is worth the benefit, as they see it. You see no benefit in religious tolerance (in this specific context) and I judge that to be a credible and consistent point of view.
To be clear, I see no way we could keep the risk to 100 terror deaths per year with continued Muslim immigration. So my price can’t be met.
We end up at the same place. I priced it differently but neither of us wanted the deal.
I concur with his conclusion. We place different values, as measured in American lives, on the principle of religious freedom in the USA. But because he correctly recognizes that there is no way to keep the risk below the price he is willing to pay – which, contra my assumption, turned out to be his actual position on the matter – he ended up on the same place that I did.
Which is to say that Muslim immigration should be banned on the basis of the tangible risk it poses to the lives of Americans.