View Single Post
  #64  
Old 06-13-2019, 07:24 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Again, an OLD dictionary. One that is also missing terms like "microcomputer" and "cellphone" and so on. It's nowhere near current.
If I a cite a sufficiently current one — what then? Would one suffice to show BigT was wrong, or will it get handwaved away as some unique outlier until I provide a second? Or will that still not be enough to show BigT’s “any” comment was wrong? What, exactly, would it take to show that BigT was wrong?

Quote:
A major difference between felons (and the rest of the folks you mention) and people crossing the international border without following preferred procedures is that the felons have been tried in a court of law .
That line there about “the rest of the folks you mention” — is that true? Because, to pick just one: the part where I mentioned “trespassers” brings to mind how people sure do seem toss that word around, descriptively or conversationally or whatever, even before the folks in question have been tried in a court of law; the term just gets put out there, unremarkably but doing useful work, every so often, right?

Quote:
That's why terms like "undocumented" are less inflammatory. It indicates a non-standard entry without passing judgement on it prior to a formal hearing which may or may not bring to light more information.
But what if they are documented? What if the — illegal aliens? Is that what we’re to go with, referring to them as both illegal and as aliens, because like the man said it may facilitate discussion and thus be worth the shrug even if I keep seeing it as a distinction without a difference — so, okay, what if the illegal aliens in question happen to be here illegally as a mere matter of documented fact? Isn’t what’s relevant the illegality, regardless of if it happens to be documented?