Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #851  
Old 08-14-2019, 09:46 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
That earlier post was by way of asking him. No response yet.
  #852  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:08 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjŪ de Gallina View Post
Leaving aside that it was Obama who started the whole "innocent children in cages" thing.
Yes, let's leave it aside. In fact, why would you even bring it up? Even if it were entirely 100% true in both text and subtext, why would it be remotely relevant? Assuming Obama did exactly what Trump is doing now for exactly the same reasons, what does that imply? Really think it through. Would it make what's going on even one iota less horrible? Would it make the moral response to what's going on different?

Seriously, I want you to ask yourself. Why did you bring this up? Why should it matter to anyone, save perhaps those trying to assess Obama's political legacy (a question nobody has asked in this thread)?

Because I have a theory.

Quote:
1) Where should they be put? Would it be better if they were deported immediately?

2) How do you prevent creating the perverse incentive of making it better for someone to cross the border illegaly if they bring a child with them? How do you deal with many kids not coming with relatives and just being trafficked across the border?
Y'know, I'm not an expert on immigration. I don't have good answers to these questions. But I have to ask - why are you asking this? Is it about actually finding solutions?

It took me all of about five seconds to find this article detailing alternatives. They're out there. There are absolutely options other than "separate families and hold children in concentration camps". Effective ones, for purposes of "effective" you might care about.

But... they don't matter, because the people running this program aren't looking for effective, non-cruel solutions. We know that this is a new policy designed to be cruel as a deterrant. It's not an easy problem, but the Trump administration is not looking for solutions. People who have been paying attention to this issue are aware that the problem is not and never has been "We don't have a way to solve this other than child separation". The cruelty is the point.

Maybe you don't know any of this. Maybe you're wading into this discussion without any of that context, or indeed, any real background knowledge on the subject at all. But you'll have to excuse me if I read this as yet another attempt to find a reason not to care. "It's not that bad, and even so, they don't really have a choice, they need to do this." It sounds less like "how can we do better?" and more like "how could we possibly do better?". And I really gotta wonder - do you honestly think that this is the best we can do? Really?

Maybe I'm just projecting. But none of this is new information, and at this point even giving the administration the benefit of the doubt to the degree you have is deeply suspect.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 08-14-2019 at 10:10 AM.
  #853  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:18 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Yes, let's leave it aside. In fact, why would you even bring it up? Even if it were entirely 100% true in both text and subtext, why would it be remotely relevant? Assuming Obama did exactly what Trump is doing now for exactly the same reasons, what does that imply? Really think it through. Would it make what's going on even one iota less horrible? Would it make the moral response to what's going on different? ...
Noting the lack of "moral response" during the Obama administration for similar treatment of immigrants highlights that this hysteria has more to do with finding something else to complain about President Trump over after the Russia thing turned out to be a dry well rather than genuine outrage over the conditions at our detention centers. It's noting the selective outrage when a Republican does the same thing a democrat did. Someone else recently used the phrase "LARPing politics". I think that fits here too.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-14-2019 at 10:23 AM.
  #854  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:22 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Noting the lack of "moral response" during the Obama administration for similar treatment of immigrants highlights that this hysteria has more to do with finding something else to complain about President Trump over after the Russia thing turned out to be a dry well rather than genuine outrage over the conditions at our detention centers.
Seems more like a week-ass attempt to change the subject to me.
  #855  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:29 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
a Republican does the same thing a democrat did.
Except he didn't. Been over that.
  #856  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:31 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Except he didn't. Been over that.
Sure he did. The toothpaste complaint arose during the Obama administration. There are Obama-era photos of "kids in cages". But anyways, the post I was responding was granting that, at least as a hypothetical: "Assuming Obama did exactly what Trump is doing now for exactly the same reasons..."
  #857  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:35 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
They are essentially, 'won't someone think of the children' arguments.!
Sometimes (like now, for instance), thinking of the children is appropriate, when discussing law should be superseded by the discussion of ethics and morality.
  #858  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:36 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
It ain't about toothpaste.
  #859  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:17 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,482
There's plenty of reasons why "Obama did it too" is, as far as arguments go, pretty fucking telling about whoever's making it.

There's the fact that it's blatantly untrue, and that we all know that.

There's the assumption that nobody cared about the problems in Obama's immigration policy, when we also know that's blatantly untrue.

There's the assumption that the reason nobody said anything is that they knew and didn't care - I can't speak for anyone else, but back in 2014, I hadn't heard about this.

And then there's the core assumption - "we can point out some tentative, weak hypocrisy, therefore you secretly care as little about their suffering as I openly do." Because if they can "prove" that we don't really care, they have their excuse not to care. It's 100% pure projection and fundamentally bullshit, but, for a change, I can't actually prove that I'm not fundamentally operating in bad faith, that the jews being arrested at ICE detention centers aren't going to jail just to stick it to Trump, that the people writing about this and volunteering for this and giving money for this aren't all just a big anti-Trump conspiracy.

...Except, it's also a really bad excuse. Even assuming I'm the kind of sociopathic fuckstick whose only interest in human suffering is "how can it benefit me politically"... Why does that give you a pass? The suffering is the same. There are still people crammed wall-to-wall in cells in concentration camps, families being separated, people dying. None of that has changed. It's just that you've found some reason to believe that those who claim to care might, if they're as deeply cynical as your fantasies imply, not care that much.

So. Fucking. What.

Congratulations, ignoring all the reasons why it's bullshit, the very best-case scenario this argument gets you to is "You're a terrible person, therefore you have no business criticizing me for being a terrible person". "You don't care about their suffering (despite all your claims to caring about their suffering), therefore it's fine that I don't care about their suffering."

Is that where you want to be? Really?

This isn't really my observation. @JuliusGoat said it all first. The whole thread is great and very much worth reading if you want to understand the modern republican party, but the conclusion he reaches is this:

Quote:
Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

The only thing you can do is insist that every person is a unique and irreplaceable work of art of unsurpassable worth.

So let's keep doing that.

It'll piss some people off.

And I don't care.
That's an ethos worth following.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 08-14-2019 at 11:19 AM.
  #860  
Old 08-14-2019, 12:12 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There are Obama-era photos of "kids in cages".
Yeah, kids who had voluntarily separated themselves from their families by virtue of crossing the border unaccompanied is totally the same thing as kids crossing the border with their families then being forcibly separated.

[/sarcasm]

Last edited by Skywatcher; 08-14-2019 at 12:12 PM.
  #861  
Old 08-14-2019, 01:49 PM
AjŪ de Gallina's Avatar
AjŪ de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perķ
Posts: 4,498
They come from shithole countries, definitely.
Their parents are endangering them by makng them cross deserts. How does a guard know that kids is actually family?
So, putting them in cages with their famillies would be acceptable?

Quote:
Ah the party of Family Values ... Gotta love it.
Does this mean you're in favor of more children being put in danger?

Quote:
"Trafficked" or being sent by desperate parents to a place where they have a hope of survival? What do you mean by "trafficked"? Who benefits?
Trafficked. Bought and sold (or rented) to improve your chances of being accepted. It's usually and aggravating fact that, whle doing an illegal action, you put a minor in danger.

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Yes, let's leave it aside. In fact, why would you even bring it up? Even if it were entirely 100% true in both text and subtext, why would it be remotely relevant? Assuming Obama did exactly what Trump is doing now for exactly the same reasons, what does that imply? Really think it through. Would it make what's going on even one iota less horrible? Would it make the moral response to what's going on different?
OK.

Quote:
Seriously, I want you to ask yourself. Why did you bring this up? Why should it matter to anyone, save perhaps those trying to assess Obama's political legacy (a question nobody has asked in this thread)?
Because I'm evil.

Quote:
Because I have a theory.
I don't like your theory and dismiss it as easily as you proposed it.

Quote:
Y'know, I'm not an expert on immigration. I don't have good answers to these questions. But I have to ask - why are you asking this? Is it about actually finding solutions?
Yes, none have been presented here. Definitley one of my proposals would be to disincentivize endangering minor on your way to the US.

Quote:
It took me all of about five seconds to find this article detailing alternatives. They're out there. There are absolutely options other than "separate families and hold children in concentration camps". Effective ones, for purposes of "effective" you might care about.
There are 15 links in that post. Which is the one you think solves the problem?

But... they don't matter, because the people running this program aren't looking for effective, non-cruel solutions. We know that this is a new policy designed to be cruel as a deterrant. It's not an easy problem, but the Trump administration is not looking for solutions. People who have been paying attention to this issue are aware that the problem is not and never has been "We don't have a way to solve this other than child separation". The cruelty is the point.


I'm all for deterring people from putting minors (their own or otherwise) in danger.
Which of your solutions or appeals to pity reduces the number of children endangered by adults?

Quote:
Maybe you don't know any of this. Maybe you're wading into this discussion without any of that context, or indeed, any real background knowledge on the subject at all. But you'll have to excuse me if I read this as yet another attempt to find a reason not to care. "It's not that bad, and even so, they don't really have a choice, they need to do this." It sounds less like "how can we do better?" and more like "how could we possibly do better?". And I really gotta wonder - do you honestly think that this is the best we can do? Really?
I'm not so I avoided the lecture.

Quote:
Maybe I'm just projecting. But none of this is new information, and at this point even giving the administration the benefit of the doubt to the degree you have is deeply suspect.
Yes, you are. You favor putting children in danger and benefitting people who traffick children under the excuse of "sending them to a better place."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That earlier post was by way of asking him. No response yet.
  #862  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:03 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
They're not separating families to protect children. The administration stated the real reason why on multiple occasions -- they see value in harming families and children for deterrent purposes. The administration purposefully separated families because they saw value in separating families. It was to deliberately harm families and children for deterrent purposes. By their own words.
  #863  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:15 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Just two questions for you, Aji, arising from all that contemptuous and contemptible nonsense you just posted:
Quote:
Their parents are endangering them by makng them cross deserts.
Why do you think they're doing that?

Quote:
Trafficked. Bought and sold (or rented) to improve your chances of being accepted.
Upon what information do you think that is happening?
  #864  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:24 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjŪ de Gallina View Post
Yes, you are. You favor putting children in danger and benefitting people who traffick children under the excuse of "sending them to a better place."
Well you favor torturing and killing children. See we can both make ridiculous claims. How is that helpful for this conversation though?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #865  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:30 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjŪ de Gallina View Post
Trafficked. Bought and sold (or rented) to improve your chances of being accepted.
From NBC News, June 2018:
Quote:
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said at a White House press briefing on Monday that between October and February there had been a more than 300 percent rise in the number of cases where ďminors have been used and trafficked by unrelated adults in an effort to avoid detention.Ē

But a review of department data and interviews with officials, immigration lawyers and advocates show that itís unclear how much of a surge this was ó or whether these crimes were as ominous as Nielsen suggested.

According to Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman, that 315 percent spike equaled 145 more cases ó up from 46 from October 2016 to September 2017, to 191 in the first five months of this fiscal year. Nielsen previously called this surge in fake families ďstaggering.Ē

Yet those 191 cases represent just half of 1 percent of the roughly 31,000 people who illegally crossed the border during those five months, department data shows.
  #866  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:41 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,769
While Trump attempts to deter immigrants, traffickers and victims who are already here have been slipping through the cracks.
  #867  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:38 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,877

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
But someone of your credentials and accomplishments and contributions gets to stay here due to an accident of birth. Life sure is funny, huh?
Back off on making this personal. We have a functioning BBQ Pit forum.

[ /Moderating ]
  #868  
Old 08-15-2019, 05:34 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjŪ de Gallina View Post
Quote:
But... they don't matter, because the people running this program aren't looking for effective, non-cruel solutions. We know that this is a new policy designed to be cruel as a deterrant. It's not an easy problem, but the Trump administration is not looking for solutions. People who have been paying attention to this issue are aware that the problem is not and never has been "We don't have a way to solve this other than child separation". The cruelty is the point.
I'm all for deterring people from putting minors (their own or otherwise) in danger.
Which of your solutions or appeals to pity reduces the number of children endangered by adults?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjŪ de Gallina View Post
Because I'm evil.
..
  #869  
Old 08-15-2019, 07:26 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
"Appeals to pity"? Appeals to humanity.
  #870  
Old 08-15-2019, 09:11 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
"Appeals to pity"? Appeals to humanity.
They are usually called appeals to emotion, and represent a logical fallacy.
  #871  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:06 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
If you're peremptorily dismissing the relevance of basic morality, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what fundamental principles you do base your position upon.
  #872  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:41 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If you're peremptorily dismissing the relevance of basic morality, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what fundamental principles you do base your position upon.
So what principle(s) of basic morality are you basing your argument on?
  #873  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:51 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
So what principle(s) of basic morality are you basing your argument on?
I believe there is already a question on the table.
  #874  
Old 08-15-2019, 01:10 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
And the answer is not "no u".
  #875  
Old 08-15-2019, 03:49 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
If you're peremptorily dismissing the relevance of basic morality, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what fundamental principles you do base your position upon.
Cold Vulcan logic. Of course.
  #876  
Old 08-15-2019, 03:51 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And the answer is not "no u".
"Yes, well, Iím polymerized tree sap and youíre an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns to its original trajectory and adheres to you.Ē - S. Cooper
  #877  
Old 08-16-2019, 09:44 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
So what principle(s) of basic morality are you basing your argument on?
What do you base our laws on?

Everything comes down to a moral question at some point, and the point of laws is to attempt to codify our morals into a legally enforceable structure.

If you cannot use morals to decide that not murder is better than murder, then how do you justify laws about homicide or violence. If you cannot use morals to show that not stealing is better than stealing, then how do you justify laws on property rights?

All laws are based on morality, so to then say that you don't care about morality, only the law, is to have it backwards.

If the law serves morality, if the law attempts to reflect the morality of the people. then that is a path towards egalitarianism.

If morality serves the law, if morality is defined by what is legal and illegal, then that is a path towards totalitarianism.
  #878  
Old 08-16-2019, 10:18 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
What do you base our laws on?

Everything comes down to a moral question at some point, and the point of laws is to attempt to codify our morals into a legally enforceable structure.

If you cannot use morals to decide that not murder is better than murder, then how do you justify laws about homicide or violence. If you cannot use morals to show that not stealing is better than stealing, then how do you justify laws on property rights?

All laws are based on morality, so to then say that you don't care about morality, only the law, is to have it backwards.

If the law serves morality, if the law attempts to reflect the morality of the people. then that is a path towards egalitarianism.

If morality serves the law, if morality is defined by what is legal and illegal, then that is a path towards totalitarianism.
I believe laws come from morality in many cases. I just know that the set of axiomatic principles that comprise a moral code are in fact axiomatic. Secondly, moral codes are not universally shared. Iím willing to argue morality but in doing so there will be irreconcilable differences that will arise. Ultimately, those are resolved via force.
  #879  
Old 08-16-2019, 10:49 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I believe laws come from morality in many cases. I just know that the set of axiomatic principles that comprise a moral code are in fact axiomatic. Secondly, moral codes are not universally shared. Iím willing to argue morality but in doing so there will be irreconcilable differences that will arise. Ultimately, those are resolved via force.
They are most successfully and peacefully resolved through a representative democracy. Obviously, at some times, force is required, as society's disapproval of murder may not reconcile with Crazy Eddie's approval of murder.

No, morals are not universally shared, but we have come up with a framework that most of us can agree to mostly.

It is the edge cases that get argued back and forth, not the 90% of what we agree on. And I would think that sending a mentally ill person off to die painfully and alone in a foreign country should be something that falls into that 90%, and that those who will accept or even cheer such a result are in the extreme minority. This should not be an edge case, concentration camps shouldn't be edge cases. We should be arguing whether the small number of immigrants who need to be detained should be getting 20 or 30 square feet of room each, that's the sort of thing that doesn't fall into the
part that everyone should be agreeing on.
  #880  
Old 08-16-2019, 10:52 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,482
Yeah I'm not gonna lie, if sending a mentally ill homeless person off to near-certain death in a foreign country they've never lived in isn't something that disgusts you, I'm not really interested in debating morality with you, any more than I want to debate morality with someone who is about to shoot up a mosque. You have found excuses to be cruel, and I don't really want to try to explain why something is wrong to someone who is that far gone.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 08-16-2019 at 10:53 AM.
  #881  
Old 08-16-2019, 11:06 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Yeah I'm not gonna lie, if sending a mentally ill homeless person off to near-certain death in a foreign country they've never lived in isn't something that disgusts you, I'm not really interested in debating morality with you, any more than I want to debate morality with someone who is about to shoot up a mosque. You have found excuses to be cruel, and I don't really want to try to explain why something is wrong to someone who is that far gone.
I wouldn’t have done it. But then again if I were king of the US there would be much that I’d change. But I’m not king and don’t rule by fiat. Since we say we care about process and law then in a society where nominally we can change the process and law somewhat democratically then that’s the method we should employ.

I remember some hate directed my way because I was against judicial decree for same sex marriage. Supposedly that made me homophobic. No. Not at all. It’s just that in a complex society process matters, otherwise when the apparatus of power is in the hands of one who doesn’t share your set of values the unconstrained tools you celebrated can be used against you.

This also explains in part the seemingly paradoxical embrace of the Orange One by the evangelicals. It’s fascinating.

Last edited by octopus; 08-16-2019 at 11:08 AM.
  #882  
Old 08-16-2019, 11:55 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I wouldnít have done it. But then again if I were king of the US there would be much that Iíd change. But Iím not king and donít rule by fiat. Since we say we care about process and law then in a society where nominally we can change the process and law somewhat democratically then thatís the method we should employ.
This presupposes that those who are elected democratically behave like intelligent adults and not spoiled toddlers who throw a tantrum when they don't Get Their Way. You'd be surprised how fast the process breaks down when this assumption falls into the shredder.

Quote:
I remember some hate directed my way because I was against judicial decree for same sex marriage. Supposedly that made me homophobic. No. Not at all. Itís just that in a complex society process matters, otherwise when the apparatus of power is in the hands of one who doesnít share your set of values the unconstrained tools you celebrated can be used against you.
What "unconstrained tools"? A lightning bolt was not thrown from Mt. Olympus to strike down Teh Evil Anti-LGBTs. It was a court case that went through The Process that you so proudly hail.

Quote:
This also explains in part the seemingly paradoxical embrace of the Orange One by the evangelicals. Itís fascinating.
You misspelled "sickening."
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #883  
Old 08-16-2019, 12:20 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
This presupposes that those who are elected democratically behave like intelligent adults and not spoiled toddlers who throw a tantrum when they don't Get Their Way. You'd be surprised how fast the process breaks down when this assumption falls into the shredder.


What "unconstrained tools"? A lightning bolt was not thrown from Mt. Olympus to strike down Teh Evil Anti-LGBTs. It was a court case that went through The Process that you so proudly hail.


You misspelled "sickening."
Yeah, courts overruling democratic majorities when dealing with social issues has made the courts and judicial fiat the ultimate political prize. 8 years of Trump worth it to you?
  #884  
Old 08-16-2019, 12:44 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Yeah, courts overruling democratic majorities when dealing with social issues has made the courts and judicial fiat the ultimate political prize. 8 years of Trump worth it to you?
But the constant refrain from the right is that we do not live in a democracy. So why is that only important sometimes?

Also, can you enlighten me as to what democratic majorities were overruled? Gay marriage? When did the USA as a whole vote on that? I don't recall casting my vote in that referendum.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #885  
Old 08-16-2019, 12:51 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
The courts' role in enforcing Constitutional principles does sometimes entail overruling democratic majorities. That's what the Constitution and courts are for, among other things. Why bother having laws if they're always up for a vote? That's middle-school Civics class stuff. But, someone who doesn't believe in a general system of morality that guides it shouldn't be expected to recognize the importance of placing basic principles beyond the reach of democratic majorities, or of simply recognizing humans to be humans.

Will Trump's child abuse and other intentional cruelties swing the election, per the OP? There probably aren't many undecideds left to sway either way, but it, as part of the mass of indefensibility he has associated with us, may discourage a few of the less-committed deplorables.
  #886  
Old 08-16-2019, 12:56 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The courts' role in enforcing Constitutional principles does sometimes entail overruling democratic majorities. That's what the Constitution and courts are for, among other things. Why bother having laws if they're always up for a vote? That's middle-school Civics class stuff. But, someone who doesn't believe in a general system of morality that guides it shouldn't be expected to recognize the importance of placing basic principles beyond the reach of democratic majorities, or of simply recognizing humans to be humans.

Will Trump's child abuse and other intentional cruelties swing the election, per the OP? There probably aren't many undecideds left to sway either way, but it, as part of the mass of indefensibility he has associated with us, may discourage a few of the less-committed deplorables.
No one in here is saying they donít believe in morality. People are stating that sets of moral principles are not universally shared and that moral principles arenít really provable.
  #887  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:01 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
They don't have to be universally shared, just generally shared, and they are. Exceptions do exist and can be found in this thread, but that doesn't mean they have to be respected - even if they can be articulated, which those in this thread have not been.

And how would a principle be "provable"? Derived from something even more fundamental? What would that be - a metaprinciple of some kind?
  #888  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:08 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
They don't have to be universally shared, just generally shared, and they are. Exceptions do exist and can be found in this thread, but that doesn't mean they have to be respected - even if they can be articulated, which those in this thread have not been.

And how would a principle be "provable"? Derived from something even more fundamental? What would that be - a metaprinciple of some kind?
I just said they werenít. They are axiomatic.

And youíd be surprised at how consequential seemingly minor differences in axiomatic systems manifest.
  #889  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:10 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I just said they werenít. They are axiomatic.

And youíd be surprised at how consequential seemingly minor differences in axiomatic systems manifest.
Murder is wrong - generally shared
Stealing is wrong - generally shared
assault is wrong - generally shared

Many many things are morally generally agreed upon. This is the basis of civilization.

I can't even really figure out what the hell you are talking about. It sounds like you're saying that there is nothing that is generally agreed to be morally wrong. That can't possibly be what you are saying, can it?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #890  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:14 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Murder is wrong - generally shared
Stealing is wrong - generally shared
assault is wrong - generally shared

Many many things are morally generally agreed upon. This is the basis of civilization.

I can't even really figure out what the hell you are talking about. It sounds like you're saying that there is nothing that is generally agreed to be morally wrong. That can't possibly be what you are saying, can it?
Because "Sending a mentally ill person off to die painfully and alone in a foreign country as punishment for petty misdemeanors is wrong" = apparently not generally shared.
  #891  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:16 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Murder is wrong - generally shared
Stealing is wrong - generally shared
assault is wrong - generally shared

Many many things are morally generally agreed upon. This is the basis of civilization.

I can't even really figure out what the hell you are talking about. It sounds like you're saying that there is nothing that is generally agreed to be morally wrong. That can't possibly be what you are saying, can it?
No. Thatís not what Iím saying. Iím saying if you are going to argue from base principles you have to assume that they are actually shared.

Letís look at history. Religions typically come with a moral code. One could naively think that 2 Christians would share the same moral code. The religious wars between different interpretations of the same set of moral principles would be evidence to the contrary.

Even something as simple as the economic value of a human life has tremendous implications for policy based on the assumed value.
  #892  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:24 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
No. Thatís not what Iím saying. Iím saying if you are going to argue from base principles you have to assume that they are actually shared.

Letís look at history. Religions typically come with a moral code. One could naively think that 2 Christians would share the same moral code. The religious wars between different interpretations of the same set of moral principles would be evidence to the contrary.

Even something as simple as the economic value of a human life has tremendous implications for policy based on the assumed value.
Sounds like a recipe for not being able to ever agree on anything or pass any laws at all. What is the avenue to get around this issue so that society can function and properly govern itself?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #893  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:34 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Sounds like a recipe for not being able to ever agree on anything or pass any laws at all. What is the avenue to get around this issue so that society can function and properly govern itself?
Historically, it has been "might makes right", and so you impose your will by physical aggression.

More recently, it has been democracy, where we take a poll of the general morals of the populace, and make laws based on that.

Currently, it is sliding into fascism run by the minority. We will probably end up back at feudalism, as that seems to be the most stable form of government.
  #894  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:44 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I just said they werenít. They are axiomatic.
Axioms are not "provable" by definition.

Quote:
And youíd be surprised at how consequential seemingly minor differences in axiomatic systems manifest.
Yes, they can even lead to rationalizing child abuse while claiming it to be "unemotional".
  #895  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:59 PM
xenophon41's Avatar
xenophon41 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere up country.
Posts: 5,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
No. Thatís not what Iím saying. Iím saying if you are going to argue from base principles you have to assume that they are actually shared.
If such an assumption is flawed in the particular case, then refute it.

Some moral precepts may certainly be reasonably assumed to be shared within a society, particularly if those precepts form the stated moral bases for many of that society's laws. It's up to those who are responding to a moral argument based on such assumptions to refute the cited precepts or show how the elements being presented as immoral do not in fact breach them.

And, in fact, if the moral arguments are weak, contradictory or based on flawed assumptions, this sort of refutation is trivially easy. It's difficult not to conclude that those who find moral arguments "unpersuasive" are concerned at some level with avoiding the emotional dissonance their proper consideration would bring, with the appeal to rhetorical principle the most reasonable rationalization.
  #896  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:43 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophon41 View Post
If such an assumption is flawed in the particular case, then refute it.

Some moral precepts may certainly be reasonably assumed to be shared within a society, particularly if those precepts form the stated moral bases for many of that society's laws. It's up to those who are responding to a moral argument based on such assumptions to refute the cited precepts or show how the elements being presented as immoral do not in fact breach them.

And, in fact, if the moral arguments are weak, contradictory or based on flawed assumptions, this sort of refutation is trivially easy. It's difficult not to conclude that those who find moral arguments "unpersuasive" are concerned at some level with avoiding the emotional dissonance their proper consideration would bring, with the appeal to rhetorical principle the most reasonable rationalization.
Refute what? That people have different sets of morals? It's sort of self-evident.

Look at the different religions, political parties, and behaviors that make up the world. There no sense even debating that point further.

But the question came from is it immoral to send a person to die for a minor crime.

1) You don't know if that person is going to die. Is a person's complete life the responsibility of the USA's? I'd say no. I'd say you are responsible for most of your own life.

2) Is the USA responsible for all of the mentally ill within its borders? I'd say no. That's far too large of an economic burden. Is there room for dramatic improvement? Yes. We have the resources for some improvement but we don't have unlimited resources and since we are constrained by scarcity we have to prioritize how those resources are spent. As a society we have decided that mental health is not going to get more than the military as an example.

3) Does the US have the right to deport troublesome people? Yes it does.

4) Should it? I believe yes it should.

5) Tradeoffs in policy that cost human life occur continuously. Even something as simple as setting a speed limit on the highway comes at the cost of lives. Is 5 MPH more speed over a 30 mile stretch worth 1.2 lives per year? Someone thought so.

6) These calculations are never linear and they always have dismissed 2nd and higher order effects. For example, if you criminalize prostitution you empower pimps. If you criminalize alcohol you get the gangsters of the Prohibition. If you make 3 strike laws the norm you fill up prisons with petty crooks and dope smokers.

So a misdemeanor by one person may have a negligible effect on society in isolation does not have negligible effect on society if the signal is sent that the state ignores misdemeanors. Speaking of which, that is why turning a blind eye to crimes committed by favored politicians is so corrosive. It sends a signal to society that the concept of law does not matter.

To conclude, yes I think it was a terrible thing when that person got shipped to Iraq and dies. But terrible things occur constantly just as a function of human existence and the state cannot be held liable for every bad outcome of destiny. That's the tragedy of the human condition. Bad things are destined to happen.

Now we should work to mitigate bad outcomes. But every human institution and system is going to have some flaws. So while it's easy to say "oh my! that was terrible", and it was. It's hard to say what the solution should be that doesn't cause bigger problems down the road.

Last edited by octopus; 08-16-2019 at 02:44 PM.
  #897  
Old 08-16-2019, 03:35 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
To conclude, yes I think it was a terrible thing when that person got shipped to Iraq and dies. But terrible things occur constantly just as a function of human existence and the state cannot be held liable for every bad outcome of destiny. That's the tragedy of the human condition. Bad things are destined to happen.

Now we should work to mitigate bad outcomes. But every human institution and system is going to have some flaws. So while it's easy to say "oh my! that was terrible", and it was. It's hard to say what the solution should be that doesn't cause bigger problems down the road.
Problem is when the ones executing the laws are hellbent into interpreting them in the most cruel ways and then trying to make the laws even more so, it is a sadly predictable thing when they are touched by the worst angels of their nature.

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/13/tru...s-the-cruelty/
Quote:
Trumpís latest crackdown on legal immigration looks like a major win for Miller, the leading immigration opponent in the White House and the architect of most administration policy on the issue. The youthful yet cadaverous adviser has long sought to redefine federal immigration rules as restrictively as possible.

On Monday, for example, the administration announced a change to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1882 that seeks to reinterpret ďpublic charge,Ē a term never explicitly defined by Congress that allows the government to deny permanent residency to immigrants who are deemed a financial burden on society. A ďpublic chargeĒ has historically referred to someone who is ďprimarily dependent on the government for subsistence" based on their receipt of ďpublic cash assistance." Trumpís new rule, set to go into effect in two months although an overwhelming majority of public comments oppose the change, expands the universe of federal assistance programs that could disqualify immigrants, designating use of food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid as negative factors when evaluating applications for green cards or visas.
Quote:
This mixed crackdown on both legal and illegal immigration hurts communities and the economy. But it undeniably boosts Trumpís credentials with many of his virulently anti-immigrant supporters, including far-right pundit Ann Coulter, with whom the president seems obsessed. In a recent tweet, Coulter suggested Trump should be criminally charged for employing undocumented immigrants at his many resorts.

The Trump campaign confirmed last week that it would not stop airing ads that use the dehumanizing term ďinvasionĒ in touting the president's tough-on-immigration approach, even though that same language was echoed by the El Paso gunman who murdered 22 Latinos last week. Trumpís campaign ran more than 2,000 ads using the term in the lead-up to the massacre. The president long ago made clear that there will be no "pivot" to the center and no fake appeal to the entirety of the nation heís nominally tasked with leading. He understands as clearly today as he did on the day four years ago that he descended his golden escalator, that his one and only path to victory is to play to the cruelest instincts of the GOP base ó and that the way to win them over is with unadulterated hate.
  #898  
Old 08-16-2019, 03:41 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,228
For those engaged in this pointless, hamster-wheel debate, one question: why?
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #899  
Old 08-17-2019, 06:29 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
For those engaged in this pointless, hamster-wheel debate, one question: why?
It isn't really a debate, but an effort to make it clear (to readers if not supporters) just what the pro-concentration-camp position is really based upon.
  #900  
Old 08-21-2019, 09:15 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,731
This Just In-Trump doesn't think the children in his care are suffering enough, so he plans on eliminating the Flores settlement(that small bit of protection the children currently have).

Quote:
The Flores settlement, established in 1997 after a 1985 class-action lawsuit involving several migrant children, limits the amount of time the government is allowed to detain an immigrant child to 20 days or less. The agreement also establishes minimum guidelines for safe and sanitary conditions in detention facilities, requiring the government to provide children with basic needs like food, water and medical care.
Shit.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017