EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 78
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 06 2017 02:18 KwarK wrote: I made no hypothetical, it really is just unclear what xDaunt is asking. He didn't clarify whether he wanted no illegal immigration through legalizing immigration or by stopping illegal immigration without fixing the reasons it exists, or some combination of the two. We're not refusing to talk about it, on the contrary we're making a much more good faith attempt to discuss it than xDaunt's silly "are you in favour of crime?" deserved. Is it too hard for you to state the means by which you agree? You're being purposefully dense here for no good reason. You're the one responding, and you could clarify your response "Yes, I want open borders to all not guilty of a capital offense" for example, but instead you perpetuate the idea that you have no good response and would rather troll until he changes the question. I wasn't really expecting people to answer "I choose to dodge the question." I did expect you and others through your behavior show how uncomfortable you are with the principle. That question and response advanced thread understanding, however ashamed people may be to admit it, and it was a valuable contribution on all sides. | ||
KwarK
United States42638 Posts
On September 06 2017 03:01 Danglars wrote: Is it too hard for you to state the means by which you agree? You're being purposefully dense here for no good reason. You're the one responding, and you could clarify your response "Yes, I want open borders to all not guilty of a capital offense" for example, but instead you perpetuate the idea that you have no good response and would rather troll until he changes the question. I wasn't really expecting people to answer "I choose to dodge the question." I did expect you and others through your behavior show how uncomfortable you are with the principle. That question and response advanced thread understanding, however ashamed people may be to admit it, and it was a valuable contribution on all sides. I did state the means by which I agreed. As did other people. Even though the question was framed in a really fucking dumb way. It kicked off a whole discussion regarding the ways in which zero illegal immigration would be attained and the where the line between increasing enforcement costs for diminishing reductions should be drawn. You're in your own lunatic fringe world where you make up your own reality. Literally nothing that you're complaining about has happened in the topic today. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 06 2017 03:05 KwarK wrote: I did state the means by which I agreed. As did other people. Even though the question was framed in a really fucking dumb way. It kicked off a whole discussion regarding the ways in which zero illegal immigration would be attained and the where the line between increasing enforcement costs for diminishing reductions should be drawn. You're in your own lunatic fringe world where you make up your own reality. Literally nothing that you're complaining about has happened in the topic today. And you have no comprehension of your own behavior in the thread and the behavior of others. Almost none. You know the language, you can understand his point at some level, but the pattern of your responses and your means of characterizing others demonstrate your inability to grasp arguments different than yours ... perhaps they demonstrate your selective choice about how and when you will give them fair hearing. Since this has been going on for many months now, I don't really see any use in continuing to hash this out. We'll look at the exact same conduct over such a small frame of three pages and come to exact opposite conclusions to what is "reality" and what is "lunatic fringe world." So I'm going to try to limit my responses to you in the future when you won't stare truth in its ugly face because it helps nobody and wastes my time. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42638 Posts
On September 06 2017 03:22 Danglars wrote: And you have no comprehension of your own behavior in the thread and the behavior of others. Almost none. You know the language, you can understand his point at some level, but the pattern of your responses and your means of characterizing others demonstrate your inability to grasp arguments different than yours ... perhaps they demonstrate your selective choice about how and when you will give them fair hearing. Since this has been going on for many months now, I don't really see any use in continuing to hash this out. We'll look at the exact same conduct over such a small frame of three pages and come to exact opposite conclusions to what is "reality" and what is "lunatic fringe world." So I'm going to try to limit my responses to you in the future when you won't stare truth in its ugly face because it helps nobody and wastes my time. If you think his point was so clear then go ahead and tell us whether you think zero illegal immigration should be the goal, without addressing the how it would be achieved, what it would cost, and without defining what the legal immigration policy would look like. Just give us a plain yes or no. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On September 06 2017 02:04 Danglars wrote: It doesn't even wiggle the needle of thread norms with regards to pointed argumentation. It's absolutely desirable because people like ChristianS thought the point was tautological, and it obviously wasn't given all the controversy. He learned something. Kwark goes off trolling in his "0% illegal immigration hypothetical" and so do two or three others, which sorta underscores the entire reason for bringing it up. If you have to represent the point in bad faith or talk around the point, chances are it's a tough topic for one ideological bastion. I did? I should probably cue myself in on what that was. As far as I could tell, xDaunt asked a vague question, people tried to clarify what he meant, and he still hasn't. I broke the vague wuestion into three more specific questions that all could be interpretations of "is illegal immigration bad," which you quoted. I read your response as "I disagree with your assumptions so I won't answer the questions, and based on our history let's just ignore each other." (Feel free to clarify if I misunderstood you) The form I thought was nearly tautological, still is as far as I can tell, but xDaunt's original question is too ambiguous to tell if that's what he's asking. If he refuses to clarify it makes the ambiguity look intentional. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42638 Posts
On September 06 2017 03:57 xDaunt wrote: What the fuck is vague or ambiguous about "is illegal immigration bad?" The definition of illegal and the context behind the immigrants. You might as well ask if illegal drug use is unequivocally bad and group a beer before you're 21 with meth. If an Iraqi interpreter who helped coalition forces during the occupation and would face reprisals upon return overstayed a visa illegally I would not consider that an especially bad outcome, not compared to him being returned to Iraq against his will. That's an example of context for you. Of the two possible outcomes in that context illegal immigration is the good one. Obviously legal immigration would be a better one, but you have given us no reason to think that that is a possibility within your question. As bad is a relative term illegal immigration is not bad in that context. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21664 Posts
On September 06 2017 03:57 xDaunt wrote: What the fuck is vague or ambiguous about "is illegal immigration bad?" The fact that entire parts of the US economy would collapse without illegal immigrants? Agriculture for a big one. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
Are you looking for a moral condemnation of the immigrants for breaking the law? Are you saying that larger numbers of illegal immigrants correlate to some negative outcome? Or are you merely arguing that given a legal avenue and an illegal avenue to accomplish a given task, people ought to take the legal one? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 06 2017 04:03 Gorsameth wrote: The fact that entire parts of the US economy would collapse without illegal immigrants? Agriculture for a big one. Then have the intellectual honesty to just say that you are in favor of illegal immigration. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 06 2017 04:02 KwarK wrote: The definition of illegal and the context behind the immigrants. You might as well ask if illegal drug use is unequivocally bad and group a beer before you're 21 with meth. If an Iraqi interpreter who helped coalition forces during the occupation and would face reprisals upon return overstayed a visa illegally I would not consider that an especially bad outcome, not compared to him being returned to Iraq against his will. That's an example of context for you. Of the two possible outcomes in that context illegal immigration is the good one. Obviously legal immigration would be a better one, but you have given us no reason to think that that is a possibility within your question. As bad is a relative term illegal immigration is not bad in that context. I don't think that you want to plead ignorance here. People who don't know what illegal immigration is should just stay out of the conversation. If you want to parse types of illegal immigration, then the proper response to my original question is "some types of illegal immigration are good." This shit isn't rocket science. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 06 2017 04:07 ChristianS wrote: The word bad is the biggest ambiguity to me, if you want to be specific. Are you looking for a moral condemnation of the immigrants for breaking the law? Are you saying that larger numbers of illegal immigrants correlate to some negative outcome? Or are you merely arguing that given a legal avenue and an illegal avenue to accomplish a given task, people ought to take the legal one? What, now I need to explain what "bad" means? I'm clearly using it in the context of tolerating illegal immigration is bad policy. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=8646#172918 also, looks like another mess today in thread; caused by the usual suspects adn the usual problems; adn the failure to hold people accountable or ever actually decide the matter. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42638 Posts
On September 06 2017 04:31 xDaunt wrote: I don't think that you want to plead ignorance here. People who don't know what illegal immigration is should just stay out of the conversation. If you want to parse types of illegal immigration, then the proper response to my original question is "some types of illegal immigration are good." This shit isn't rocket science. That proper response is literally what all the responses you got said. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42638 Posts
On September 06 2017 04:29 xDaunt wrote: Then have the intellectual honesty to just say that you are in favor of illegal immigration. You're putting words in his mouth. He said that the agriculture sector would collapse without illegal immigration. That does not mean that he is in favour of illegal immigration. You could potentially infer that he would prefer illegal immigration to the collapse of the agriculture sector but even that doesn't amount to support of illegal immigration, only opposition to starvation. You're trying this weird word game where you decided that the liberals think illegal immigration is good so you set out to trap them. It's far, far more likely that Gorsameth would argue that migrant labourers should have legal status and therefore the question of whether illegal immigration is bad wouldn't apply to them. This is why explaining what the fuck you're talking about matters. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21664 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13924 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
| ||
