Straight Dope Message Board

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Filbert

This is some quality sov cit level arguing right there. The hypothetical existence of a dictionary that doesn't call a dehumanising slur a slur

Hypothetical? Broomstick, who doesn’t seem to be at all on my side here, didn’t merely grant that there might be some dictionaries out there that don't make that notation, but immediately went on to mention one that doesn’t.

if you think it's fine to use a slur to describe people, own it.

Is it a slur to describe people as “felons” instead of phrasing it in some other way? Is it a slur to accurately describe people as “trespassers” or “perjurers” — or as “arsonists” or “burglars” or whatever, on through the alphabet — instead of wording it some other way? In a sense, you could say it is; and yet, yes, all of that strikes me as fine. So fine, in fact, that I’m not sure that’s what it means to use a slur.

Would you say ‘illegals’ is a slur the way ‘felons’ and ‘trespassers’ and ‘perjurers’ and the rest are? Or are you saying it’s a slur in a way they’re not? 51

[asahi]

You're just splitting hairs, Waldo. A word becomes a slur when it is used to describe a group of people, and when people take umbrage to the slur. That's really all it takes.

The word "fag" once meant cigarette - still does in some parts of the world. Most know it's a slur, and it doesn't matter whether a majority of dictionaries describe it that way or not. Most adults who care enough to discuss the politics of gays and lesbians know it's something that gays and lesbians take offense to when used by non-gays and non-lesbians. The other day Septimus used the word "tranny" to refer to transgendered people. He used it because at one time, it wasn't considered offensive. Not realizing it was no longer p.c., he used it and was warned for it. (FTR, Septimus apologized and said he wasn't aware it was no longer an acceptable term, and I believe him - he's a good poster).

The same is true of "illegal." You can say that so-and-so is an "illegal immigrant" or that "illegal immigrants" put a strain on the resources of some local communities. But the term "illegals," like many other slurs, is offensive because of its casual usage. It's used casually to describe a group of people. The term also reinforces the idea that they are "the other," and that they're low class. Even if someone is 100% factually correct in pointing out that they don't have legal status, it's dehumanizing to label them in that way because it so often ignores the understandable reasons many have for skipping the immigration process. Many "illegals" are, in fact, decent people who just want a better life for themselves and their families. People can disagree with their decision and their justifications for crossing the border illegally - that doesn't make someone a racist or a bigot. But one could argue throwing them into some broad category or class of people and debasing them with a term that reinforces their low status is bigoted behavior. At the very least, it's insensitive. Dictionaries aren't required to prove that point. 52

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by asahi

You're just splitting hairs, Waldo. A word becomes a slur when it is used to describe a group of people, and when people take umbrage to the slur. That's really all it takes.

But that gets at what I’m asking, in all sincerity: the word ‘felon’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if they “take umbrage” to that? The word ‘trespasser’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if it’s met with umbrage?

If so, then, sure, I guess I’m fine with using such slurs. If your two-part test is the one we’re to apply, then as far as I know I’m already making regular use of slurs. Heck, maybe I can meet something with umbrage and jab an accusatory finger at a slurrer, if they so describe me and I then, uh, “take umbrage”? 53

[Mr Shine]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore (and thus never read your “retort” until now).It’s tied up with that higher standard that Dopers are held to.

If dopers were held to a higher standard, you for one would not be here. You are an annoying turd and your drive-by "witticisms" and pontifications are appreciated by nobody. 54

[asahi]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

But that gets at what I’m asking, in all sincerity: the word ‘felon’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if they “take umbrage” to that? The word ‘trespasser’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if it’s met with umbrage?

Yes, I suppose it can if the word becomes frequently associated with reference to specific types of people. Take the word "thug," for example. A generation or two ago, a thug referred to a violent person or a criminal generally. However, in today's context, particularly when speaking in reference to a black person, it can just as easily be understood to refer to a violent black criminal, or a more socially acceptable way of using the n-word.

The real point you're refusing to acknowledge is that words have denotative meanings and connotative meanings. Words are attempts to describe thoughts and ideas. In communication, it's thoughts and ideas first, and words second, not the other way around. Words frequently fail to describe ideas, feelings, and thoughts with precision, which is why how words are intended and also interpreted depends a LOT on the context. Words can have more than one definition, and Webster's isn't necessarily the last word on what a word means.

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

If so, then, sure, I guess I’m fine with using such slurs. If your two-part test is the one we’re to apply, then as far as I know I’m already making regular use of slurs. Heck, maybe I can meet something with umbrage and jab an accusatory finger at a slurrer, if they so describe me and I then, uh, “take umbrage”?

That's right, show everyone reading this that rather than showing a willingness to try to understand why people might be offended, you just don't give a shit. Racism isn't your problem, I guess. 55

[iiandyiiii]

Illegal is regularly used against people based on skin color, country of origin, accent/language, and more features that have nothing to do with immigration status (in my personal experience, at least half the time the users of the word "illegal" couldn't possibly have knowledge of the immigration status of those they are targeting with the word). It's become a slur because it's used like a slur and received like a slur. Maybe the first people who used the n-word didn't intend it as a slur. Maybe some of them kept using it with a non-slur intention. But it doesn't matter -- once tons of people are using it as a slur, and receiving it as a slur, then it's a slur. Which is the case for "illegal" as a noun. 56

[Gatopescado]

Originally Posted by BigT

You cannot make words mean whatever you want them to mean.

This is hilarious in 2019. 57

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

But that gets at what I’m asking, in all sincerity: the word ‘felon’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if they “take umbrage” to that? The word ‘trespasser’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if it’s met with umbrage?

I can't find any evidence that those words are defined as being slurs, disparaging, or offensive.

So should I take your questions as essentially asking why the word "cunt" is offensive but the word "apple" is not? Are you this stupid? 58

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Mr Shine

If dopers were held to a higher standard, you for one would not be here. You are an annoying turd and your drive-by "witticisms" and pontifications are appreciated by nobody.

o_o

>_<

o_0 59

[kaylasdad99]

I appreciate them.

60

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by asahi

You're just splitting hairs, Waldo. A word becomes a slur when it is used to describe a group of people, and when people take umbrage to the slur. That's really all it takes.

This way too vague to have any meaning at all. Doper is a word to describe a group of people. It can describe several groups depending on the context.

But fine, I will concede the point if it will get the discussion back on point. In all future posts I will not use the term, but will type out the full 'illegal aliens'. 61

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

But that’s my point: if a minority of dictionaries list it that way, then I wasn’t wrong; the poster who stated that it’s listed as derogatory in any dictionary was wrong, and should’ve made some other claim instead.

I also pointed out that dictionary was over 40 years old and thus is not current. I'm sure if you looked in a dictionary from, say 1850 the term n***** would not be listed as offensive as it is now, and "negro" would be deemed polite although at best it's borderline these days.

Hence my reference to "hairsplitting".

It’s an interesting — and derogatory? — claim that you’re putting out there; I
take it you mean I’m not a decent human, because no matter what else I do I refer to such people as ‘illegals’ instead of ‘illegal aliens’ or ‘people who are here illegally’ or whichever term you prefer?

Remember this phrase: "people are not illegal". In other words, "legal" is an adjective, not a noun. "Illegal aliens" and "people who are here illegally" are both more acceptable that using "illegal" as a noun.

If so, then: if you had to guess, what percent of this country would you figure “are not decent humans”?

Seat of my pants? Around 40% these days. That's a wild ass guess, I have no statistics or cites to back it up with, it's purely opinion. 62

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Hypothetical? Broomstick, who doesn’t seem to be at all on my side here, didn’t merely grant that there might be some dictionaries out there that don't make that notation, but immediately went on to mention one that doesn’t.

Again, an OLD dictionary. One that is also missing terms like "microcomputer" and "cellphone" and so on. It's nowhere near current.

Is it a slur to describe people as “felons” instead of phrasing it in some other way? Is it a slur to accurately describe people as “trespassers” or “perjurers” — or as “arsonists” or “burglars” or whatever, on through the alphabet — instead of wording it some other way? In a sense, you could say it is; and yet, yes, all of that strikes me as fine. So fine, in fact, that I’m not sure that’s what it means to use a slur.

Would you say ‘illegals’ is a slur the way ‘felons’ and ‘trespassers’ and ‘perjurers’ and the rest are? Or are you saying it’s a slur in a way they’re not?

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 . People wandering over the border? Who knows? Are they people with legitimate claim to asylum or refugee status? Did they get drunk and wander across the line by accident? (Believe it or not, it IS possible to cross such a border by accident)

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. Due process - something we're all supposed to have in the country. 63

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

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?

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?

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? 64

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

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?

I think your grasping at straws there. I would be VERY surprised if any English dictionary published in North America in the past 20 years would NOT mention the use of "illegal" as a noun/person to be derogatory.

It's a very common term, used of the term, and view of that term.

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?

There is a definite legal definition of "trespassing" as well as legal penalties for same. You can be legally convicted of trespassing. Otherwise - well, maybe you are and maybe you aren't.

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?

The "documents" referred to here are those permitting one to legally enter a country and you damn well know it. It's not about "documenting a person's presence" in the US.

A person can legally enter the US for a variety of reasons using a variety of documents to do so - passports, visas, enhanced driver's license, "green card", etc. So a person might be allowed to enter on vacation, or allowed to live here but not work here, or allowed to live AND work here, might be here as a legal refugee, might be here without permission or document permitting entry... You can't tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isn't. The vast majority of people are NOT the border police and have no business trying to determine if someone is or isn't in the US legally.

If you have certain legal documents are a legal immigrant or legal alien. Again, that might be anything from permission to be here on vacation to some sort of visa or permission to live here permanently and work here as well. If you do not posses any such document you are an illegal immigrant or illegal alien. If so, you are SUPPOSED TO get a hearing where you can plead your case. Maybe you were on a boat on Lake Huron and got blown to the wrong side of the border (that actually does happen - also in Lake Superior, the Detroit River, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario...). Maybe you were snowshoeing along the Montana/Canadian border in January and got lost. Maybe you arrived somehow or other from, say, Somalia and claim you face certain death if forced to return... which, if you can substantiate that might get you a claim of asylum in which case, even if you entered the US without permission you will be given permission to stay at which point you move from "illegal immigrant" to "legal immigrant" without penalty, perhaps one day moving to "citizen". You might enter as a legal refugee.

Or maybe you have no permission to enter at all, snuck in, have no right to be here, maybe you have nefarious ideas of what to do here - but that's not for the average person in the street to determine, any more than the average person in the street is allowed to sit as a judge in a felony trial.

In other words, there are a variety of legal documents and permissions by which you are allowed to stay in the US. Possession of those is what is meant by "documented". A hearing in front of judge is how the determination is SUPPOSED TO be made as to whether or not someone has legal permission to be here or not. 65

[not what you'd expect]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

I appreciate them.

So do I and I would bet most dopers appreciate you as well. 66

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

I think your grasping at straws there. I would be VERY surprised if any English dictionary published in North America in the past 20 years would NOT mention the use of "illegal" as a noun/person to be derogatory.

I’m not asking whether it would surprise you; I’m asking whether it would show that BigT was wrong. (But, for clarity: would online sources suffice?)

There is a definite legal definition of "trespassing" as well as legal penalties for same. You can be legally convicted of trespassing. Otherwise - well, maybe you are and maybe you aren't.

But what I’m asking is: do people make routine and unremarkable use of the term “trespassers” even when describing folks who haven’t been legally convicted of it?

The "documents" referred to here are those permitting one to legally enter a country and you damn well know it. It's not about "documenting a person's presence" in the US.

A person can legally enter the US for a variety of reasons using a variety of documents to do so - passports, visas, enhanced driver's license, "green card", etc. So a person might be allowed to enter on vacation, or allowed to live here but not work here, or allowed to live AND work here, might be here as a legal refugee, might be here without permission or document permitting entry... You can't tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isn't. The vast majority of people are NOT the border police and have no business trying to determine if someone is or isn't in the US legally.

How does that not cut both ways? You say that I can’t tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isn’t; wouldn’t I likewise have trouble trying to tell by looking at someone what the story is when it comes to documents? 67

[Monty]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore

Good call. I have joined your club. I shan't be seeing TOWP's nonsense any longer. 68

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

We are not really talking about the moral behavior. Lets be clear on that.

If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.

And would be an evil person. ICE are the American Brownshirts, and should never under any circumstances be called, aided or respected in any way. When the law is evil, obeying the law is evil. Cooperating with monsters is a monstrous act. 69

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

I’m not asking whether it would surprise you; I’m asking whether it would show that BigT was wrong. (But, for clarity: would online sources suffice?)

You're shifting goalposts and you think you're witty.

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

But what I’m asking is: do people make routine and unremarkable use of the term “trespassers” even when describing folks who haven’t been legally convicted of it?

No, I don't actually hear that term very much. Where do you live that you do?

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

How does that not cut both ways? You say that I can’t tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isn’t; wouldn’t I likewise have trouble trying to tell by looking at someone what the story is when it comes to documents?

Why the hell are you stopping random people and asking to see their residency/citizenship documents? No, you CAN'T tell by "looking at someone" if they're here legally or not, or even whether their a citizen or not.

It's no harder to spot genuine/fake residency documents than genuine/fake driver's licenses or other forms of ID or Official Government Document. People who hire employees at a company routinely have to ask for ID that proves a person has permission to work in the US. This isn't rocket science. If anything, the official documents for legal immigrants are more consistent and therefore easier to deal with than what's commonly used for native born US citizens which is the birth certificate - which varies widely depending on location and when a person was born. I expect at some point they're going to tell all of us old farts who have actually hung onto our very first iteration of it that our 20th Century version doesn't meet modern standards and we have to get an updated copy with all sorts of fancy anti-fraud measure in it but that hasn't happened yet. 70

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

We are not really talking about the moral behavior. Lets be clear on that.

If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.

The behavior that is forbidden is being part of a network that helps immigrants skirt immigration law.

How do I know whether a group of random people are "skirting the law" or just some tourists that got lost?

Hell, I wouldn't even know how to contact ICE myself. I almost asked "are they in the phone book?" but then I remembered we don't have phone books these days any more than we have rotary dial phones. I do know how to hand someone a sandwich and a bottle of water if they need it, and how to call 911 if emergency aid is required. With most Americans the first action upon encountering someone in distress is "can I help you?" rather than calling ICE. At least for know.

What next, we're going to ask anyone from south of the border to sew a little green leaf on their shirts? 71

[Chisquirrel]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

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?

How about you actually cite one, instead of ranting on and on about how BigT is wrong, even though you refuse to actual prove your point?


So I'll do it. The vast majority of current dictionaries dealing with the general English language define illegal as a derogatory slur. SMDB Squirrels define you as a ranting, lazy pedant. 72

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

You're shifting goalposts and you think you're witty.

No, it’s that I’ve got online ones at the ready, and if they can suffice I’d be glad to cite them; but if that would count as shifting goalposts, then I’d rather find out beforehand and supply a dead-tree cite instead. I’m looking for clarification because I’m looking to avoid a goalpost shift.

No, I don't actually hear that term very much. Where do you live that you do?

Seriously? I just searched it on Google News, and saw “trespassers” get featured prominently but routinely in articles from all over the country — often mundanely getting the idea across right there in the headline, whether it was a story out of Pennsylvania or Minnesota or Virginia or New Mexico or whatever.

Why the hell are you stopping random people and asking to see their residency/citizenship documents? No, you CAN'T tell by "looking at someone" if they're here legally or not, or even whether their a citizen or not.

That’s not my point. You said “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.” You add that I “CAN'T tell by "looking at someone" if they're here legally or not”; my point is, I likewise can’t tell by "looking at someone" if they’re undocumented or not. 73

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel

How about you actually cite one, instead of ranting on and on about how BigT is wrong, even though you refuse to actual prove your point?

::shrugs:: Okay, let’s start with one.

[googles]

How about Macmillan? Their online dictionary, which of course labels a number of other words as “offensive”, mentions nothing of the sort when indicating that this noun means an illegal immigrant.

So I'll do it. The vast majority of current dictionaries dealing with the general English language define illegal as a derogatory slur.

So take it up with BigT, who should’ve done what you just did by sensibly referring to “the vast majority of current dictionaries” or some such instead of just leading off with an “any”. I’m not saying I dispute your sensible remark here; why didn’t you sensibly dispute BigT’s remark there? 74

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

::shrugs:: Okay, let’s start with one.

[googles]

How about Macmillan? Their online dictionary, which of course labels a number of other words as “offensive”, mentions nothing of the sort when indicating that this noun means an illegal immigrant.



So take it up with BigT, who should’ve done what you just did by sensibly referring to “the vast majority of current dictionaries” or some such instead of just leading off with an “any”. I’m not saying I dispute your sensible remark here; why didn’t you sensibly dispute BigT’s remark there?

Merriam Webster calls it "sometimes disparaging and offensive". If you want to hang your hat on "not all dictionaries call it offensive all the time", then feel free. But it's a slur the way you're using it, and there are non-slur ways to say the same thing. Using it knowing this just means that you're okay with using (and rationalizing) ethnic slurs.

I've had the exact same conversation with people about "wetback" and worse racial slurs. Some people just really, really want to use ethnic/racial slurs, and will search for any justification they can scrabble for. I'm not sure why you'd want to join their ranks, but you are free to do so. 75

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Merriam Webster calls it "sometimes disparaging and offensive". If you want to hang your hat on "not all dictionaries call it offensive all the time", then feel free. But it's a slur the way you're using it, and there are non-slur ways to say the same thing. Using it knowing this just means that you're okay with using (and rationalizing) ethnic slurs.

Why throw in “ethnic” at the end? You’re already railing against me for what you say is a slur — and without a word of criticism for BigT for inaccurately hanging a hat on dictionaries in the first place — and you have to add in the bit about “ethnic”, too? If I do wind up shrugging with a switch to “illegal aliens”, would that get me a free pass from you on both the ‘slur’ front and the ‘ethnic’ front? 76

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Why throw in “ethnic” at the end? You’re already railing against me for what you say is a slur — and without a word of criticism for BigT for inaccurately hanging a hat on dictionaries in the first place — and you have to add in the bit about “ethnic”, too? If I do wind up shrugging with a switch to “illegal aliens”, would that get me a free pass from you on both the ‘slur’ front and the ‘ethnic’ front?

Because it's used as an ethnic slur. It may be used as other slurs as well, but most of how I've heard it has been against brown-skinned people with Latin American accents (and by those with no knowledge of the target's immigration status). Maybe the origin of "wetback" comes from people swimming the Rio Grande, but it morphed into a generic ethnic slur against Latin American people (and especially those of Mexican descent).

Yes, I'm not aware of "illegal alien" being used or commonly understood as a slur, so I wouldn't be critical of that phrase.

Language is complicated, but not so complicated that it's very difficult to avoid using ethnic slurs. 77

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

How do I know whether a group of random people are "skirting the law" or just some tourists that got lost?

Hell, I wouldn't even know how to contact ICE myself. I almost asked "are they in the phone book?" but then I remembered we don't have phone books these days any more than we have rotary dial phones. I do know how to hand someone a sandwich and a bottle of water if they need it, and how to call 911 if emergency aid is required. With most Americans the first action upon encountering someone in distress is "can I help you?" rather than calling ICE. At least for know.

What next, we're going to ask anyone from south of the border to sew a little green leaf on their shirts?

ASK?

You poor country mouse... 78

[Chisquirrel]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

::shrugs:: Okay, let’s start with one.

[googles]

How about Macmillan? Their online dictionary, which of course labels a number of other words as “offensive”, mentions nothing of the sort when indicating that this noun means an illegal immigrant.

Finally! Was that so fucking hard? You're still a ranting pedant, however. 79

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel

Finally! Was that so fucking hard?

Naw, I’d googled it before I first posted my reply to BigT; found three perfectly good hits right off the bat, and figured that they’d still be there the next time I googled, and, sure enough, they were.

You're still a ranting pedant, however.

Well, this is still the SDMB, right? Don’t folks here tend — strive, even — to point out the precise and exact truth in reply to a question or an incorrect claim? 80

[Woofdogs]

Originally Posted by Pleonast

Every time someone talks about voting Christian values, I point to stuff like this. Jesus was very clear about how to treat those in need, especially travelers.

Laws that forbid moral behavior should never be enforced.

I absolutely agree with you and I have often advanced this very argument. The answer I always get is "Yes, BUT...."

Anyone can call themselves a Christian, but if you don't follow Christ's precepts to the very best of your ability then you are NOT a Christian, say what you will. 81

[CoastalMaineiac]

Originally Posted by BigT

Even if these people were somehow the enemy, offering your enemy food and water is the right thing to do. Only a sociopath worries about allegiances when it comes to helping the sick and dying.

Indeed! If one sees a fellow human being in distress—especially in extreme climates, like the middle of a desert—one offers such assistance as one is able to offer. Failure to do so makes one a rather shitty human being.

I guess we're not supposed to offer help unless it's to the right kinds of people these days. But I've never made a habit of conducting background checks on people before offering to help, so how am I supposed to know who is worthy of being treated as a human being and who am I supposed to treat like dirt?

Like, if I go ice fishing on Long Lake in the dead of winter, and see a Canadian fall through some thin ice, am I to inquire of his immigration status before I try to pull him out of the water and take him someplace to get warm? After all, Canadians are notorious visa overstayers (cite). Or perhaps all would be forgiven, since a typical French Canadian would have the "correct" skin color. 82

[DrFidelius]

Next up:
Were the authorities too soft on people who violated the Fugitive Slave Act through their so-called "Underground Railroad" known safe spaces. 83

[GreenHell]

After taking my oath of service, in which I gave my solemn word to fight, die, or even kill to protect the values espoused in the U.S. Constitution and the citizens of this nation, I was educated on a moral responsibility to render needed medical care to all those in need, regardless of uniform or flag. Meaning our troops, enemy troops, non-uniformed combatants, civilians, terrorists, and mercenaries alike. It would scarcely cross my mind that rending medical or nutritive aid to any person would be criminal. Of course, my opinion of the culture and leadership of this country has been significantly degraded in the years since then. 84