|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 06 2017 05:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:13 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:09 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 04:43 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 04:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I know that's not the first time I harp on this but it's not really surprising that your rightwing doesn't have a bunch of coherent arguments after you have decided as a country to redefine the right so absurdly that someone like KwarK is now leftwing. And win elections with it! In most of the country! Absolutely absurd. I follow these arguments incessantly, and I constantly wonder, "If all this is true, how could the Democrats be such losers to mess it all up to such a large degree." And the responses are ... telling. Like arguments that could get you to bad shit happening in the House, but not explain the supposedly out-of-step and ideologically bankrupt right can control so many governorships/state houses that you have to rewind to the civil war to beat the dominance. We're winning so we can't be wrong! If I'm not misremembering it's you that harps on about the failures of a two party system to give viable voting options, could that not be the case here? Seriously, re-read. The poster described the right as not "having a bunch of coherent arguments" and the country has decided to "redefine the right so absurdly." How could the Democrats mess it up? Why does the party of the right enjoy such great majorities in governorships and state houses? It matters that people still see their interests represented in this supposed bankrupt position that huge majorities go this way. If it were just low amounts of viable voting options, the Dems ought to win that easily. Lesser of two evils with such a bad opposition how could you lose? Still waiting, kollin. You posit your questions as evidence that my opinion is wrong when there are actual answers to your questions that make logical sense and when a cursory glance at the world demonstrates that my opinion is factually substantiated. If only you could communicate the actual answers to your questions that make logical sense. Wait a second ... let's see if I have it down: If you actually told them, you'd then realize that the real answers totally contradict your points and make them all fundamentally unsound, to the extent to which even a short read would make you realize how stupid it would be to hold them. You clearly don't have it down. Haven't you learned from the last few times we had an interaction and you immediately disengaged when the threat of an actual conversation emerged?
Your solution is to state that such a contradictory argument exists, but you refuse to say it. I say you'd be better off not responding at all if you have something to refute my argument but won't lay it down. It might be mistaken for losing the argument.
|
On September 06 2017 05:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:07 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 04:43 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 04:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I know that's not the first time I harp on this but it's not really surprising that your rightwing doesn't have a bunch of coherent arguments after you have decided as a country to redefine the right so absurdly that someone like KwarK is now leftwing. And win elections with it! In most of the country! Absolutely absurd. I follow these arguments incessantly, and I constantly wonder, "If all this is true, how could the Democrats be such losers to mess it all up to such a large degree." And the responses are ... telling. Like arguments that could get you to bad shit happening in the House, but not explain the supposedly out-of-step and ideologically bankrupt right can control so many governorships/state houses that you have to rewind to the civil war to beat the dominance. We're winning so we can't be wrong! If I'm not misremembering it's you that harps on about the failures of a two party system to give viable voting options, could that not be the case here? Seriously, re-read. The poster described the right as not "having a bunch of coherent arguments" and the country has decided to "redefine the right so absurdly." How could the Democrats mess it up? Why does the party of the right enjoy such great majorities in governorships and state houses? It matters that people still see their interests represented in this supposed bankrupt position that huge majorities go this way. If it were just low amounts of viable voting options, the Dems ought to win that easily. Lesser of two evils with such a bad opposition how could you lose? Still waiting, kollin. I think majority of the US is absurdly right wing. I congratulate you in holding a consistent position with reality. I do not take that for granted in this thread. If we define the left/right divide in a European context, I might actually agree with you. The people have failed the state, and should be dissolved to be replaced by another.
I'm British, so it is in a European context. Nechubad is European too, so that follows. I'm sure that Adlai Stevenson quote about thinking people in America could be applied here.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 06 2017 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2017 04:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Well on the bright side at least like ~90% of people can finally agree that Hillary should shut the fuck up because ain't no one buying it anymore. As bad as DWS' "I did nothing wrong and just took one for the team" from however long ago that BS was. 1. It's typical for presidents or lifetime politicians to have a biography written about them, so I'm not surprised by that. Asking her to shut the fuck up seems pretty harsh; she hasn't really been spending the last 6 months on talk shows whining about losing or whatever.
On and off she has. Problem is that every time she goes on a tour people tell her it's time to fuck off.
On September 06 2017 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
2. I want to resist passing too much new judgment on sentences from one specific page before reading the whole book (i.e., possibly quote mining).
Maybe. But a page like that isn't just a quote out of context, it's more like a poorly conceived attempt to throw shade on Bernie.
On September 06 2017 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
3. I don't think Hillary is particularly justified in blaming Bernie for attacks that caused lasting damage. I think that Bernie did more good than harm in trying to rally his supporters around Hillary (he reminded everyone that their ideologies are relatively similar in the big picture). I also think that Hillary did more harm than good when she didn't really throw Bernie supporters a bone. She didn't really try to win them over, and thus they felt disenfranchised and angry with the Democratic establishment.
No comment here.
On September 06 2017 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
4. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both would have been competent presidents, unlike Donald Trump.
Hillary wouldn't have been a national embarrassment but she would be far from a good president. It would just be "status quo incompetence."
Sanders I really hadn't made up my mind. I liked his general ideas but he seemed a little impractical to me. Would have paid more attention had he made it to the general.
|
On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:00 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Once again, look within. Extend people the good faith that you demand we keep extending you.
I responded to your post with “I will also agree that crime is bad and all education should be the best.” What part of that was not agreeing with you? I showed the good faith by asking the fucking question in the simplest form possible rather than presuming the answer. That y'all still refused to make their simplest and easiest of admissions isn't my fault. If y'all want to play dumb or lie, I can't stop you. I stand by my original assessment, this is gaslighting for stupid people. You can’t trick us into redefining good faith to allow you to call “the left” stupid all the time. Feel free to show otherwise. I'm giving y'all plenty of opportunity to show your colors. Needless to say, I've found them wanting so far. And here's the rub: there is an intellectual and sound argument for y'all to make. So when you're ready to stop shitting up the thread and make it, I'll be here. Why am I not surprised that xDaunt's logic leads to everyone else in the thread being anti-intellectual shit-posters. Take a look at your posts, ChristianS's, or Kollins' (among others, but not all). The proof is in the pudding. You literally do not engage with anyone that injects the nuance required into the issue, because to do so would be to admit that your original interjection into the discussion was pants on head retarded. Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote.
Illegal immigration is bad. The vast majority of people who immigrate illegally aren't. Our immigration policy is criminally negligent (as you've pointed out here). That's the response you got since the beginning.
Not understanding why you think that's a dodge or inadequate answer?
EDIT: @P6 please don't equate Hillary profiting off of blaming everyone but herself for losing to THE WORST MAJOR PARTY NOMINEE IN MODERN HISTORY (though I guess losing makes her the worst), and doing/saying practically nothing to "keep fighting", with Bernie going to red and blue districts around the country and actually trying to sway hearts and minds.
|
United States41989 Posts
On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:00 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Once again, look within. Extend people the good faith that you demand we keep extending you.
I responded to your post with “I will also agree that crime is bad and all education should be the best.” What part of that was not agreeing with you? I showed the good faith by asking the fucking question in the simplest form possible rather than presuming the answer. That y'all still refused to make their simplest and easiest of admissions isn't my fault. If y'all want to play dumb or lie, I can't stop you. I stand by my original assessment, this is gaslighting for stupid people. You can’t trick us into redefining good faith to allow you to call “the left” stupid all the time. Feel free to show otherwise. I'm giving y'all plenty of opportunity to show your colors. Needless to say, I've found them wanting so far. And here's the rub: there is an intellectual and sound argument for y'all to make. So when you're ready to stop shitting up the thread and make it, I'll be here. Why am I not surprised that xDaunt's logic leads to everyone else in the thread being anti-intellectual shit-posters. Take a look at your posts, ChristianS's, or Kollins' (among others, but not all). The proof is in the pudding. You literally do not engage with anyone that injects the nuance required into the issue, because to do so would be to admit that your original interjection into the discussion was pants on head retarded. Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote.
wow
People like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery.
This is how you respond to the claim that you're arguing in bad faith? Wow.
Apparently if we think that there should be food then we'd support slavery. I guess you got me.
If only there was some way we could have migrant labourers without them being illegal. But I guess there isn't. We have to support slavery or starvation.
Literally nobody is arguing that people should immigrate illegally. What they are saying is that ending all illegal immigration without replacing it with legal immigration is, in many situations, even worse. Your argument is about as smart as "Chemo!? That stuff is poison! Bad!" while insisting that any mention of cancer is dodging the issue.
Illegal immigration being necessary is bad. Given that we have created a situation in which it is necessary, and where the outcome would be even worse if it were to stop, illegal immigration is less bad than the worse alternative and is therefore good. If we add a better alternative, like creating a legal immigration system that works, then illegal immigration becomes bad again.
|
On September 06 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:13 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:09 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 04:43 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 04:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I know that's not the first time I harp on this but it's not really surprising that your rightwing doesn't have a bunch of coherent arguments after you have decided as a country to redefine the right so absurdly that someone like KwarK is now leftwing. And win elections with it! In most of the country! Absolutely absurd. I follow these arguments incessantly, and I constantly wonder, "If all this is true, how could the Democrats be such losers to mess it all up to such a large degree." And the responses are ... telling. Like arguments that could get you to bad shit happening in the House, but not explain the supposedly out-of-step and ideologically bankrupt right can control so many governorships/state houses that you have to rewind to the civil war to beat the dominance. We're winning so we can't be wrong! If I'm not misremembering it's you that harps on about the failures of a two party system to give viable voting options, could that not be the case here? Seriously, re-read. The poster described the right as not "having a bunch of coherent arguments" and the country has decided to "redefine the right so absurdly." How could the Democrats mess it up? Why does the party of the right enjoy such great majorities in governorships and state houses? It matters that people still see their interests represented in this supposed bankrupt position that huge majorities go this way. If it were just low amounts of viable voting options, the Dems ought to win that easily. Lesser of two evils with such a bad opposition how could you lose? Still waiting, kollin. You posit your questions as evidence that my opinion is wrong when there are actual answers to your questions that make logical sense and when a cursory glance at the world demonstrates that my opinion is factually substantiated. If only you could communicate the actual answers to your questions that make logical sense. Wait a second ... let's see if I have it down: If you actually told them, you'd then realize that the real answers totally contradict your points and make them all fundamentally unsound, to the extent to which even a short read would make you realize how stupid it would be to hold them. You clearly don't have it down. Haven't you learned from the last few times we had an interaction and you immediately disengaged when the threat of an actual conversation emerged? Your solution is to state that such a contradictory argument exists, but you refuse to say it. I say you'd be better off not responding at all if you have something to refute my argument but won't lay it down. It might be mistaken for losing the argument.
It's just that I expect that immediately after I lay down the argument, you will stop answering and pretend nothing happened, so I'm milking my Danglars' answer time.
On top of that you have already agreed with the gist of my argument in your last answer to kollin.
|
On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:00 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 04:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I showed the good faith by asking the fucking question in the simplest form possible rather than presuming the answer. That y'all still refused to make their simplest and easiest of admissions isn't my fault. If y'all want to play dumb or lie, I can't stop you. I stand by my original assessment, this is gaslighting for stupid people. You can’t trick us into redefining good faith to allow you to call “the left” stupid all the time. Feel free to show otherwise. I'm giving y'all plenty of opportunity to show your colors. Needless to say, I've found them wanting so far. And here's the rub: there is an intellectual and sound argument for y'all to make. So when you're ready to stop shitting up the thread and make it, I'll be here. Why am I not surprised that xDaunt's logic leads to everyone else in the thread being anti-intellectual shit-posters. Take a look at your posts, ChristianS's, or Kollins' (among others, but not all). The proof is in the pudding. You literally do not engage with anyone that injects the nuance required into the issue, because to do so would be to admit that your original interjection into the discussion was pants on head retarded. Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote. Illegal immigration is bad. The vast majority of people who immigrate illegally aren't. Our immigration policy is criminally negligent (as you've pointed out here). That's the response you got since the beginning. Not understanding why you think that's a dodge or inadequate answer?
You gave a good answer. Most of the other posters didn't.
|
On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:00 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Once again, look within. Extend people the good faith that you demand we keep extending you.
I responded to your post with “I will also agree that crime is bad and all education should be the best.” What part of that was not agreeing with you? I showed the good faith by asking the fucking question in the simplest form possible rather than presuming the answer. That y'all still refused to make their simplest and easiest of admissions isn't my fault. If y'all want to play dumb or lie, I can't stop you. I stand by my original assessment, this is gaslighting for stupid people. You can’t trick us into redefining good faith to allow you to call “the left” stupid all the time. Feel free to show otherwise. I'm giving y'all plenty of opportunity to show your colors. Needless to say, I've found them wanting so far. And here's the rub: there is an intellectual and sound argument for y'all to make. So when you're ready to stop shitting up the thread and make it, I'll be here. Why am I not surprised that xDaunt's logic leads to everyone else in the thread being anti-intellectual shit-posters. Take a look at your posts, ChristianS's, or Kollins' (among others, but not all). The proof is in the pudding. You literally do not engage with anyone that injects the nuance required into the issue, because to do so would be to admit that your original interjection into the discussion was pants on head retarded. Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote.
So basically what people were saying 8 pages ago when you first asked the question.
|
On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:00 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Once again, look within. Extend people the good faith that you demand we keep extending you.
I responded to your post with “I will also agree that crime is bad and all education should be the best.” What part of that was not agreeing with you? I showed the good faith by asking the fucking question in the simplest form possible rather than presuming the answer. That y'all still refused to make their simplest and easiest of admissions isn't my fault. If y'all want to play dumb or lie, I can't stop you. I stand by my original assessment, this is gaslighting for stupid people. You can’t trick us into redefining good faith to allow you to call “the left” stupid all the time. Feel free to show otherwise. I'm giving y'all plenty of opportunity to show your colors. Needless to say, I've found them wanting so far. And here's the rub: there is an intellectual and sound argument for y'all to make. So when you're ready to stop shitting up the thread and make it, I'll be here. Why am I not surprised that xDaunt's logic leads to everyone else in the thread being anti-intellectual shit-posters. Take a look at your posts, ChristianS's, or Kollins' (among others, but not all). The proof is in the pudding. You literally do not engage with anyone that injects the nuance required into the issue, because to do so would be to admit that your original interjection into the discussion was pants on head retarded. Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote.
Could this possible be why my post included the opinion that we should first allow these needed workers a clear and attainable path to citizenship so we can then get rid of all the 'bad' illegal immigration?
Nah, that would be silly....
|
On September 06 2017 05:24 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:20 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 04:43 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 04:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I know that's not the first time I harp on this but it's not really surprising that your rightwing doesn't have a bunch of coherent arguments after you have decided as a country to redefine the right so absurdly that someone like KwarK is now leftwing. And win elections with it! In most of the country! Absolutely absurd. I follow these arguments incessantly, and I constantly wonder, "If all this is true, how could the Democrats be such losers to mess it all up to such a large degree." And the responses are ... telling. Like arguments that could get you to bad shit happening in the House, but not explain the supposedly out-of-step and ideologically bankrupt right can control so many governorships/state houses that you have to rewind to the civil war to beat the dominance. We're winning so we can't be wrong! If I'm not misremembering it's you that harps on about the failures of a two party system to give viable voting options, could that not be the case here? Seriously, re-read. The poster described the right as not "having a bunch of coherent arguments" and the country has decided to "redefine the right so absurdly." How could the Democrats mess it up? Why does the party of the right enjoy such great majorities in governorships and state houses? It matters that people still see their interests represented in this supposed bankrupt position that huge majorities go this way. If it were just low amounts of viable voting options, the Dems ought to win that easily. Lesser of two evils with such a bad opposition how could you lose? Still waiting, kollin. I think majority of the US is absurdly right wing. I congratulate you in holding a consistent position with reality. I do not take that for granted in this thread. If we define the left/right divide in a European context, I might actually agree with you. The people have failed the state, and should be dissolved to be replaced by another. I'm British, so it is in a European context. Nechubad is European too, so that follows. I'm sure that Adlai Stevenson quote about thinking people in America could be applied here.
I'm happy to at least have it down to the three possibilities. Either there is a modest amount of sense and substance to the right to be so dominant politically at every level, or the American population is factually largely right-wing across the country, or the Democrats are blind and stupid to not beat such an easily defeated "absurd" opponent with no "coherent arguments."
|
On September 06 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:00 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I stand by my original assessment, this is gaslighting for stupid people. You can’t trick us into redefining good faith to allow you to call “the left” stupid all the time. Feel free to show otherwise. I'm giving y'all plenty of opportunity to show your colors. Needless to say, I've found them wanting so far. And here's the rub: there is an intellectual and sound argument for y'all to make. So when you're ready to stop shitting up the thread and make it, I'll be here. Why am I not surprised that xDaunt's logic leads to everyone else in the thread being anti-intellectual shit-posters. Take a look at your posts, ChristianS's, or Kollins' (among others, but not all). The proof is in the pudding. You literally do not engage with anyone that injects the nuance required into the issue, because to do so would be to admit that your original interjection into the discussion was pants on head retarded. Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote. Illegal immigration is bad. The vast majority of people who immigrate illegally aren't. Our immigration policy is criminally negligent (as you've pointed out here). That's the response you got since the beginning. Not understanding why you think that's a dodge or inadequate answer? You gave a good answer. Most of the other posters didn't.
Once again, that is more a reflection on you and how to talk to people that the question itself. Though that question itself was not great.
|
On September 06 2017 05:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:23 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:16 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:13 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 05:09 Nebuchad wrote:On September 06 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 04:43 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 04:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I know that's not the first time I harp on this but it's not really surprising that your rightwing doesn't have a bunch of coherent arguments after you have decided as a country to redefine the right so absurdly that someone like KwarK is now leftwing. And win elections with it! In most of the country! Absolutely absurd. I follow these arguments incessantly, and I constantly wonder, "If all this is true, how could the Democrats be such losers to mess it all up to such a large degree." And the responses are ... telling. Like arguments that could get you to bad shit happening in the House, but not explain the supposedly out-of-step and ideologically bankrupt right can control so many governorships/state houses that you have to rewind to the civil war to beat the dominance. We're winning so we can't be wrong! If I'm not misremembering it's you that harps on about the failures of a two party system to give viable voting options, could that not be the case here? Seriously, re-read. The poster described the right as not "having a bunch of coherent arguments" and the country has decided to "redefine the right so absurdly." How could the Democrats mess it up? Why does the party of the right enjoy such great majorities in governorships and state houses? It matters that people still see their interests represented in this supposed bankrupt position that huge majorities go this way. If it were just low amounts of viable voting options, the Dems ought to win that easily. Lesser of two evils with such a bad opposition how could you lose? Still waiting, kollin. You posit your questions as evidence that my opinion is wrong when there are actual answers to your questions that make logical sense and when a cursory glance at the world demonstrates that my opinion is factually substantiated. If only you could communicate the actual answers to your questions that make logical sense. Wait a second ... let's see if I have it down: If you actually told them, you'd then realize that the real answers totally contradict your points and make them all fundamentally unsound, to the extent to which even a short read would make you realize how stupid it would be to hold them. You clearly don't have it down. Haven't you learned from the last few times we had an interaction and you immediately disengaged when the threat of an actual conversation emerged? Your solution is to state that such a contradictory argument exists, but you refuse to say it. I say you'd be better off not responding at all if you have something to refute my argument but won't lay it down. It might be mistaken for losing the argument. It's just that I expect that immediately after I lay down the argument, you will stop answering and pretend nothing happened, so I'm milking my Danglars' answer time. On top of that you have already agreed with the gist of my argument in your last answer to kollin.
Then don't waste everyone's time responding only to say you won't respond with an argument but that one "actually" exists, "is logical," and at a "cursory glance ... is factually substantiated." You become the parody everyone makes xDaunt out to be. Unless that's your goal.
|
On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: @P6 please don't equate Hillary profiting off of blaming everyone but herself for losing to THE WORST MAJOR PARTY NOMINEE IN MODERN HISTORY (though I guess losing makes her the worst), and doing/saying practically nothing to "keep fighting", with Bernie going to red and blue districts around the country and actually trying to sway hearts and minds.
Can’t help you there. People gotta bury the hatchet if they want to win over moderates. I know a lot of moderate and older democrats and it is their number one complaint.
|
On September 06 2017 05:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:00 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Feel free to show otherwise. I'm giving y'all plenty of opportunity to show your colors. Needless to say, I've found them wanting so far. And here's the rub: there is an intellectual and sound argument for y'all to make. So when you're ready to stop shitting up the thread and make it, I'll be here. Why am I not surprised that xDaunt's logic leads to everyone else in the thread being anti-intellectual shit-posters. Take a look at your posts, ChristianS's, or Kollins' (among others, but not all). The proof is in the pudding. You literally do not engage with anyone that injects the nuance required into the issue, because to do so would be to admit that your original interjection into the discussion was pants on head retarded. Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote. Illegal immigration is bad. The vast majority of people who immigrate illegally aren't. Our immigration policy is criminally negligent (as you've pointed out here). That's the response you got since the beginning. Not understanding why you think that's a dodge or inadequate answer? You gave a good answer. Most of the other posters didn't. Once again, that is more a reflection on you and how to talk to people that the question itself. Though that question itself was not great.
I think the problem is entirely that he takes posts involving cheesecake and Salma Hayek 100% seriously.
|
On September 06 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:00 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I stand by my original assessment, this is gaslighting for stupid people. You can’t trick us into redefining good faith to allow you to call “the left” stupid all the time. Feel free to show otherwise. I'm giving y'all plenty of opportunity to show your colors. Needless to say, I've found them wanting so far. And here's the rub: there is an intellectual and sound argument for y'all to make. So when you're ready to stop shitting up the thread and make it, I'll be here. Why am I not surprised that xDaunt's logic leads to everyone else in the thread being anti-intellectual shit-posters. Take a look at your posts, ChristianS's, or Kollins' (among others, but not all). The proof is in the pudding. You literally do not engage with anyone that injects the nuance required into the issue, because to do so would be to admit that your original interjection into the discussion was pants on head retarded. Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote. Illegal immigration is bad. The vast majority of people who immigrate illegally aren't. Our immigration policy is criminally negligent (as you've pointed out here). That's the response you got since the beginning. Not understanding why you think that's a dodge or inadequate answer? You gave a good answer. Most of the other posters didn't.
Can we also agree that Kate's Law is a really dumb idea if you want to keep immigrants who repeatedly cross the border out of the country?
On September 06 2017 05:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: @P6 please don't equate Hillary profiting off of blaming everyone but herself for losing to THE WORST MAJOR PARTY NOMINEE IN MODERN HISTORY (though I guess losing makes her the worst), and doing/saying practically nothing to "keep fighting", with Bernie going to red and blue districts around the country and actually trying to sway hearts and minds. Can’t help you there. People gotta bury the hatchet if they want to win over moderates. I know a lot of moderate and older democrats and it is their number one complaint.
But you can, I'm not referring to burying the hatchet (a somewhat culturally insensitive phrase, but not nearly as bad as "Off the reservation"), which I agree with, but with your specific comparison.
Also ironic to call for a burying of hatchets when she literally is out promoting a book blaming Bernie more than herself, while Bernie is looking forward.
The only reason it's an issue is she and many of her supporters refuse to take responsibility for their errors and want to act as if they weren't errors at all, it's not personal, it's practical to point out how/why they still don't get it.
|
United States41989 Posts
xDaunt's conclusion that illegal immigration is a sacred cow of the left which they refuse to criticize is very much not supported by the discussion which overwhelmingly went the way of "ending illegal immigration without placing a legal system in place would be a policy that would backfire".
It's almost as if he already had his conclusion typed up before he cunningly laid his trap of "is illegal immigration bad?"
It's almost as if he wanted people to say "it's not as simple as simply labeling things bad, there's context and terms need to be better defined" so that he could conclude that anyone refusing to condemn it is in favour of slavery.
But that would be arguing in bad faith.
|
On September 06 2017 05:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 04:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:49 ChristianS wrote:On September 06 2017 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:09 ChristianS wrote:On September 06 2017 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 03:59 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 03:34 Plansix wrote:You should consider these types of responses a reflection on your abject failure to build common ground. Look within my son. No, and to borrow language from zlefin, this very clearly is a function of the lack of soundness in the leftist position on immigration. Y'all are just as vulnerable on immigration as the right is on healthcare. Once again, look within. Extend people the good faith that you demand we keep extending you. I responded to your post with “I will also agree that crime is bad and all education should be the best.” What part of that was not agreeing with you? I showed the good faith by asking the fucking question in the simplest form possible rather than presuming the answer. That y'all still refused to make their simplest and easiest of admissions isn't my fault. If y'all want to play dumb or lie, I can't stop you. Put it this way: Is Trump bad? Bear in mind if you don't answer, or give anything more than yes or no, I can apparently assume you're either playing dumb or lying. Watch and learn, everybody: Yes, Trump has been bad so far. The problem with most of the people around here is that y'all aren't smart enough to know to make the easy concessions when they need to be made. I don't have that problem, which is why my posting is remarkably consistent. "So far?" Arguing in bad faith, clearly either playing dumb or lying (/s). So now can we accuse you of inconsistency for ever defending him on anything? You probably should have the logic of this post checked before you go down this road. You're very far from terra firma. He's very clearly using your own argument against you to demonstrate the absurdity of it.
Indeed. A tactic you'd think xDaunt would recognize.
Then what about "are taxes bad?" XDaunt? Yes or no, same rules. If it's so easy shouldn't be any issue to answer one more.
|
On September 06 2017 05:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:30 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:00 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Why am I not surprised that xDaunt's logic leads to everyone else in the thread being anti-intellectual shit-posters. Take a look at your posts, ChristianS's, or Kollins' (among others, but not all). The proof is in the pudding. You literally do not engage with anyone that injects the nuance required into the issue, because to do so would be to admit that your original interjection into the discussion was pants on head retarded. Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote. Illegal immigration is bad. The vast majority of people who immigrate illegally aren't. Our immigration policy is criminally negligent (as you've pointed out here). That's the response you got since the beginning. Not understanding why you think that's a dodge or inadequate answer? You gave a good answer. Most of the other posters didn't. Once again, that is more a reflection on you and how to talk to people that the question itself. Though that question itself was not great. I think the problem is entirely that he takes posts involving cheesecake and Salma Hayek 100% seriously.
Cheese Cake is pie, I’m not backing down.
|
Barack Obama on DACA
Immigration can be a controversial topic. We all want safe, secure borders and a dynamic economy, and people of goodwill can have legitimate disagreements about how to fix our immigration system so that everybody plays by the rules.
But that’s not what the action that the White House took today is about. This is about young people who grew up in America – kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots who pledge allegiance to our flag. These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants. They may not know a country besides ours. They may not even know a language besides English. They often have no idea they’re undocumented until they apply for a job, or college, or a driver’s license.
Over the years, politicians of both parties have worked together to write legislation that would have told these young people – our young people – that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here a certain number of years, and if you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, then you’ll get a chance to stay and earn your citizenship. And for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill.
That bill never came. And because it made no sense to expel talented, driven, patriotic young people from the only country they know solely because of the actions of their parents, my administration acted to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people, so that they could continue to contribute to our communities and our country. We did so based on the well-established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion, deployed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, because our immigration enforcement agencies have limited resources, and it makes sense to focus those resources on those who come illegally to this country to do us harm. Deportations of criminals went up. Some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements, and went through background checks. And America grew stronger as a result.
But today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. To target these young people is wrong – because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating – because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel. What if our kid’s science teacher, or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a Dreamer? Where are we supposed to send her? To a country she doesn’t know or remember, with a language she may not even speak?
Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us. They are that pitcher on our kid’s softball team, that first responder who helps out his community after a disaster, that cadet in ROTC who wants nothing more than to wear the uniform of the country that gave him a chance. Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone’s taxes, or raise anybody’s wages.
It is precisely because this action is contrary to our spirit, and to common sense, that business leaders, faith leaders, economists, and Americans of all political stripes called on the administration not to do what it did today. And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future. I’m heartened by those who’ve suggested that they should. And I join my voice with the majority of Americans who hope they step up and do it with a sense of moral urgency that matches the urgency these young people feel.
Ultimately, this is about basic decency. This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated. It’s about who we are as a people – and who we want to be.
What makes us American is not a question of what we look like, or where our names come from, or the way we pray. What makes us American is our fidelity to a set of ideals – that all of us are created equal; that all of us deserve the chance to make of our lives what we will; that all of us share an obligation to stand up, speak out, and secure our most cherished values for the next generation. That’s how America has traveled this far. That’s how, if we keep at it, we will ultimately reach that more perfect union.
https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10155227588436749
|
On September 06 2017 05:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 06 2017 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 05:00 kollin wrote:On September 06 2017 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2017 04:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 06 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Feel free to show otherwise. I'm giving y'all plenty of opportunity to show your colors. Needless to say, I've found them wanting so far. And here's the rub: there is an intellectual and sound argument for y'all to make. So when you're ready to stop shitting up the thread and make it, I'll be here. Why am I not surprised that xDaunt's logic leads to everyone else in the thread being anti-intellectual shit-posters. Take a look at your posts, ChristianS's, or Kollins' (among others, but not all). The proof is in the pudding. You literally do not engage with anyone that injects the nuance required into the issue, because to do so would be to admit that your original interjection into the discussion was pants on head retarded. Oh I am perfectly willing to engage on nuance. What you don't understand, however, is that nuance requires context to be understood. I asked a very simple question to set the table for the more nuanced discussion to follow, which was met with .... whatever the fuck you would call this "discussion." Now, if y'all had the balls and the integrity to just make the admissions and concessions that you need to make, we'd be well on our way to a more productive discussion. But most of you are badly missing this point despite my repeatedly bludgeoning you over the head with it. xDaunt Just because someone would rather the agricultural sector of the economy not collapse than that there be zero illegal immigration does not mean they are in favour of illegal immigration. You have finally reached the climax of your attempt to trap the left with the question "is illegal immigration bad?" and the conclusion simply doesn't follow. The universal answer to "is illegal immigration bad?" is always "it depends". And yet you are insisting that "it depends" is dishonest. You're painting this absurd false choice and then crying about intellectual dishonesty whenever anyone gives you anything but a yes or no. You're deliberately misrepresenting very clear answers. You're insisting that because you were able to give a clear answer on whether or not Nazis are bad other people should be able to give an equally clear answer on illegal immigrants. You're insisting that any answers other than "yes, you got me, I'm in favour of illegal immigration" indicate a lack of integrity on behalf of the answerer. This is not what arguing in good faith looks like. You're making the kind of arguments that only an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest person would make. Stop. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Illegal immigration is unequivocally a bad thing. It enslaves people, degrades their dignity, and reduces them to a sub-class within larger society. And that's before we start talking about stuff like human trafficking. None of these arguments that I'm seeing from people like Gorsameth about how illegal immigration props up the agricultural industry changes the fact that illegal immigration is bad. Do you know what also was used to prop up the agricultural economy? Slavery. I could go down the list of any number of "necessary evils" that are obviously bad things, but needed to accomplish desirable ends. Illegal immigration is no different than any of them. I just find it endlessly amusing that y'all on the Left refuse to admit this basic fact. And it's painfully obvious why you won't admit it: illegal immigration is a sacred cow on the Left cuz y'all gotta have that hispanic vote. Illegal immigration is bad. The vast majority of people who immigrate illegally aren't. Our immigration policy is criminally negligent (as you've pointed out here). That's the response you got since the beginning. Not understanding why you think that's a dodge or inadequate answer? You gave a good answer. Most of the other posters didn't. Can we also agree that Kate's Law is a really dumb idea if you want to keep immigrants who repeatedly cross the border out of the country? Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: @P6 please don't equate Hillary profiting off of blaming everyone but herself for losing to THE WORST MAJOR PARTY NOMINEE IN MODERN HISTORY (though I guess losing makes her the worst), and doing/saying practically nothing to "keep fighting", with Bernie going to red and blue districts around the country and actually trying to sway hearts and minds. Can’t help you there. People gotta bury the hatchet if they want to win over moderates. I know a lot of moderate and older democrats and it is their number one complaint. But you can, I'm not referring to burying the hatchet (a somewhat culturally insensitive phrase, but not nearly as bad as "Off the reservation"), which I agree with, but with your specific comparison. Also ironic to call for a burying of hatchets when she literally is out promoting a book blaming Bernie more than herself, while Bernie is looking forward. The only reason it's an issue is she and many of her supporters refuse to take responsibility for their errors and want to act as if they weren't errors at all, it's not personal, it's practical to point out how/why they still don't get it.
How does it hurt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
