# @Mods -- PLEASE do not BAN Jim Peebles. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 18, 2020, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620 "2020-01-18T16:12:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2020, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/161 "2020-01-25T18:55:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > More ignorance, because even under Reagan and Bush senior, amnesty was granted to the ones that had to pass several checks, like the cutoff date (and pass a few $ checks to the department of state IIRC to pay for the process, it was not free at all) I don’t get why you’re mentioning that; you quoted me as saying it’d be nonzero, and you’re replying that — it was not free? Yeah, that’s — wasn’t that my point? Like, if you’d brought that up in response to me flatly saying it’d be _zero,_ then, sure, I’d get why you said it; but in response to me saying _nonzero?_ Didn’t I already build that into the hypothetical? > [@](#): > > BTW I do remember that in one speech from Trump he did mention that even after all what he promised to some illegals would still remain, IIRC he did mention items like, well, those who remain already demonstrated that they had the means (for sure the more wealthy) and reasons to remain in the USA. So they would remain in the USA, meaning that Trump does not care much about your hangup. Well, look, clearly if you put Trump up against a candidate who aligns even _closer_ to me on caring about this point — and, ideally, about yet others — then, by all means, figure I’d be glad to vote for that other candidate. But if he doesn’t care as much as I’d like, and he’s up against someone who cares _less?_ ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2020, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/162 "2020-01-25T19:01:56Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t get why you’re mentioning that; you quoted me as saying it’d be nonzero, and you’re replying that — it was not free? > > Yeah, that’s — wasn’t that my point? Like, if you’d brought that up in response to me flatly saying it’d be _zero,_ then, sure, I’d get why you said it; but in response to me saying _nonzero?_ Didn’t I already build that into the hypothetical? Read it again, I did not say that you said that, it was only my comment. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, look, clearly if you put Trump up against a candidate who aligns even _closer_ to me on caring about this point — and, ideally, about yet others — then, by all means, figure I’d be glad to vote for that other candidate. But if he doesn’t care as much as I’d like, and he’s up against someone who cares _less?_ Not if he uses big lies and then smaller lies. BTW, concentrating on the wall and not in funding other ways to deal with the issue is a monumental waste tat in the end just give all the opposite of what you want. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2020, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/163 "2020-01-25T19:02:54Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Fair enough; but: > > 1. How well do you think it’s currently polling? > 2. How well do you think _Miss-It-Pretty-Close_ would poll? > > To elaborate on the first: someone who says “hell, yeah, open borders” — roughly how big a percentage of Americans, and how big a percentage of Democrats, do you figure that is? > > And on the second: someone who’d say, “oh, no, not open borders; but, of course, decriminalization, plus a path to citizenship for anyone who’s already here and has committed no other crimes. But, hang on; what are we really talking about, here? Deporting someone who’s done nothing (else) wrong, but then got nailed for some petty misdemeanor? Is that justice? And if we’re letting folks who are _already_ here stay, then who are we to kick out significantly similar folks who cross a border next week or next month? Is that fair? But don’t you _dare_ call that Open Borders; no, if I had my way, they’d pay a steep price! A _steep_ price! Make no mistake: I’m talking some nonzero figure! So they can’t cross a border willy-nilly; no, sir, it’s NOT nil! They want to come in, they’ll answer to ME!” As to the first, I would have to do some research on polls that speak to numbers I can cite. But my guess based on my observational understanding of the subject, it’s not polling well at all because there are no serious policies/platforms being put forward for open borders. Certainly not by any of the leading candidates in the Democratic party who are likely to face off against Trump in the 2020 election. So again, I believe your fears are unfounded and irrational in that respect. As to the second, would you be opposed to Obama era immigration policies and practices? I assume not since you supported him with your vote. What is your evidence, not fear or conjecture, actual evidence that the leading democrats intend to implement anything significantly different? And even if you have your reasons for doubt given their ill-considered response in a debate, are you willing to vote for someone who has demonstrated such callousness and willingness to continue with more of the same? If you are up for more of the same, because ‘that is how important immigration is to you’, can you demonstrate how such harsh policies are good for American society? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2020, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/164 "2020-01-25T19:16:33Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, look, clearly if you put Trump up against a candidate who aligns even _closer_ to me on caring about this point — and, ideally, about yet others — then, by all means, figure I’d be glad to vote for that other candidate. But if he doesn’t care as much as I’d like, and he’s up against someone who cares _less?_ Another thing: As many others notice, besides Trump lying about many aspects of the issue, the big picture shows just waste and disregard for the well-being of Americans. Because you will be glad to vote for Trump it also means that you are glad that even less funding will be available for (ironically what he claims to support) military families and other projects sacrificed on an item that Trump had to lie and continue to lie about how effective it is when dealing with the issue. > **[Pentagon Will Stop These Projects to Fund Trump’s Wall](https://www.thedailybeast.com/defense-department-reveals-military-projects-that-will-lose-funding-to-pay-for-border-wall)** > > The Department of Defense has listed the projects it is putting on hold as Trump transfers money from there to fund his much-promised border wall. > [@](#): > > During the 2016 election, Donald Trump repeatedly pledged that, as president, he would get Mexico to pay for the construction of his much-promised wall along the U.S. southern border. > > On Tuesday, his administration revealed that it would be paying for the wall instead by diverting funds meant for the construction of elementary schools, hazardous waste warehouse facilities, and fire stations, among other Department of Defense initiatives. > > The revelation came in the form of a list of projects that DOD sent to Capitol Hill that it says it will now be putting on hold as the president transfers funds from that department to wall construction. All told, DOD pinpointed more than $1 billion in mainland priorities that it was now shelving, in addition to $1.8 billion in foreign-based projects, and nearly $700 million in projects based in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands—all U.S. territories. > > Among the notable items now on the backburner include $62 million for a middle school at Ft. Campbell in Kentucky, $13 million for a “child development center” at Joint Base Andrews near Washington, more than $40 million to replace a hazardous materials warehouse in Virginia, nearly $11 million for a fire station replacement in Beaufort, South Carolina; nearly $95 million for an elementary school at Camp Mctureous in Japan; and nearly $80 million for an elementary school replacement project in Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2020, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/165 "2020-01-25T20:03:15Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > As to the first, I would have to do some research on polls that speak to numbers I can cite. But my guess based on my observational understanding of the subject, it’s not polling well at all because there are no serious policies/platforms being put forward for open borders. Certainly not by any of the leading candidates in the Democratic party who are likely to face off against Trump in the 2020 election. So again, I believe your fears are unfounded and irrational in that respect. Well, look, until we’ve got poll numbers to mull, let me start with this: 51% is a pretty big number, but 51% of 51% _isn’t_; it maybe doesn’t have to be _that_ high a number to get elected, especially if (a) you’re running against a guy with Trump’s negatives and (b) a good-sized chunk of the voters who are against open borders don’t care as much about that issue as they do about other issues. That said, to the very extent that you’re right about it not polling well, I’d expect candidates who favor it to stay quiet and pitch mere decriminalization. By analogy, any candidate who actually shares Beto O’Rourke’s ideas about guns presumably realized in short order what happens if you actually _say_ hell yes. > [@](#): > > As to the second, would you be opposed to Obama era immigration policies and practices? I assume not since you supported him with your vote. What is your evidence, not fear or conjecture, actual evidence that the leading democrats intend to implement anything significantly different? And even if you have your reasons for doubt given their ill-considered response in a debate, As you hint, the debate response is of course what got my attention and gave me cause to think their policies would be different than Obama’s (because, as far as I know, Obama didn’t actually sign on for decriminalization. But, at that, as far as I know it’s not _just_ an “ill-considered response in a debate”: isn’t decriminalization also what various of them have slowly and patiently explained _since?_ > [@](#): > > are you willing to vote for someone who has demonstrated such callousness and willingness to continue with more of the same? If you are up for more of the same, because ‘that is how important immigration is to you’, can you demonstrate how such harsh policies are good for American society? Again, compared to what? If someone wants to run against Trump by proposing less harsh policies — but _without_ preemptively taking the option of prosecution off the table by saying you don’t even see it as being the least of misdemeanors; after all, it’s only someone entering our _country_ without our permission, it’s not as serious as someone entering a guy’s _yard_ without permission — then, yeah, talk about how many millions of illegal aliens we can reasonably expect to be removed from the country, and I’ll maybe nod approvingly like in the Obama days. But the closer you get to _‘compared to open borders’_, the more skeptical I get. (Which, again, is why I figure it makes less sense for us to go into detail now, and more sense to hash this out once there’s _an_ actual candidate.) Having said that, though: isn’t this, implicitly, the whole point of screening border crossers _at all?_ Isn’t it built on us saying ‘yes’ to some, and ‘no’ to others, and the reason we sometimes say ‘no’ is because, hey, we considered the pros and cons and, well, on reflection, we _don’t_ believe it’d be a good idea for American society to let _this_ person in? And then they decide to come in _anyway?_ ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2020, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/166 "2020-01-25T20:28:52Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Having said that, though: isn’t this, implicitly, the whole point of screening border crossers _at all?_ Isn’t it built on us saying ‘yes’ to some, and ‘no’ to others, and the reason we sometimes say ‘no’ is because, hey, we considered the pros and cons and, well, on reflection, we _don’t_ believe it’d be a good idea for American society to let _this_ person in? And then they decide to come in _anyway?_ Again, what the Democrats and I explained many times is that their replies to decriminalization were made under the context of Trump separating families, threatening to deport dreamers and **breaking** laws about refugees. You do not like that answer so you go back to illogical binary positions. A binary position that in this case it is based in a lie also, the criminal law statutes were specifically used then for those that were found out already that should not be here and passed the border still, unless you can point to any candidate that specifically was telling us that all criminal law should be removed, you are still willfully ignoring that Democrats are not in favor of not deporting the ones that were found already to not have any evidence for asking for asylum, not a dreamer or not a person fearing for his/her life that still crosses the border regardless. > **[Why The Trump Administration Treats Illegal Border Crossing As A Criminal...](https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736716115/why-the-trump-administration-treats-illegal-border-crossing-as-a-criminal-offens)** > > NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association about the section of the U.S. code criminalizing crossing the border between ports of entry. > [@](#): > > CHEN: That’s correct. The 1325 and 1326 prosecutions under illegal entry and reentry had been on the books for years. But the fact is the Trump administration has really used it now to target asylum-seekers. For years, we’ve seen the criminal justice system add more criminal laws and harsher penalties to the system, and we ended up with massively crowded jails and tax bills and horror stories of people being treated unfairly in the jails. There is no evidence that any democrat will not use the criminal statutes when that was what was done before. > > Now that is exactly what’s happening with prosecutions for illegal entry, which has criminalized thousands of people simply for not having legal status. And that happened under the Obama administration and prior administrations, and it’s just now being applied to extreme levels by the Trump administration. > > SHAPIRO: If 1325 were eliminated, what would that mean? Would people crossing the border without papers get the equivalent of a traffic ticket? Like, what would happen if it became a civil penalty rather than a crime? > > CHEN: Well, the important thing to recognize is that there do need to be consequences for violating the immigration laws, and it just depends on how it’s going to be done. Almost all of the immigration statute is civil by nature, so that if you entered illegally, you could be put into immigration court removal proceedings. And then if those proceedings went through, you could be deported out of the country, and that would be the specific consequence, which is already obviously very severe. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2020, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/167 "2020-01-25T20:38:42Z")
My read on your thought process is that you feel Democrats can’t be trusted not to implement an open border policy because you believe this to be their un-official agenda. This in the face of actual evidence of how they have handled illegal immigration issues to date (i.e. Obama era policies and actions), which are in stark contrast to open borders and decriminalization actions. Meanwhile, you feel Trump’s policies are more in line with your values despite an abundance of evidence that his actions have been demonstrably cruel, arguably unsuccessful/detrimental, and finally, outright lies (i.e. Wall). But you reject the former and endorse the latter. I get the emotional visceral response to illegal immigration. I don’t understand the illogical decision process of choosing the latter over the former. It’s counter-intuitive based on the preponderance of evidence as to which has been more effective in achieving your stated goals. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2020, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/168 "2020-01-25T20:43:35Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Like many, I lament the lack of Trump defenders on this Board. Perhaps I am to blame, calling **Mr. Ditka** a “sea lion” (whatever that means) till he went away. We do have **octopus** and **Shodan** , but they hardly help: These days the former just posts vapid one-liners, and the latter posts truisms interspersed with nastiness. > > […] > > Others can post as they please — this is the Pit — But I personally applaud **Jim Peebles** for his bravery and cleverness. The above excerpt may not be fully sincere or earnest, but possibly other **Peebles** ’ postings were. I was reading about Tobin Smith (former Fox presenter) and his big reveal that everything on Fox is staged and that they actively choose the dopiest, most twit-like libruls to bring on, to argue their positions. It’s good for ratings and plays great into a face/heel dynamic that people naturally eat up. I feel no need to follow the model. If there are no good Trump supporters, then let that be that. We don’t need mosquitoes to pull the wings off of. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2020, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/169 "2020-01-25T23:51:25Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > My read on your thought process is that you feel Democrats can’t be trusted not to implement an open border policy because you believe this to be their un-official agenda. This in the face of actual evidence of how they have handled illegal immigration issues to date (i.e. Obama era policies and actions), which are in stark contrast to open borders and decriminalization actions. But, again, it’s not quite right to say I’m saying _Democrats_ can’t be trusted. After all, the point is that I gave Obama, who to the best of my knowledge never called for decriminalization, the benefit of the doubt; and then I gave Clinton, who to the best of my knowledge never called for decriminalization, the benefit of the doubt. And if this year’s Democratic candidate takes the same approach, why, I’m open to giving _them_ the benefit of the doubt likewise. > [@](#): > > I get the emotional visceral response to illegal immigration. I don’t understand the illogical decision process of choosing the latter over the former. It’s counter-intuitive based on the preponderance of evidence as to which has been more effective in achieving your stated goals. In what way? Again, if the eventual Dem nominee says “hey, I figure on taking the same approach that Obama did on this issue,” then I’m of course willing to say “oh, well, then, sure, looking at how that went, the evidence seems to be on your side; so, yeah, benefit of the doubt; I’ll trust you; don’t let me down.” ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2020, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/170 "2020-01-26T00:50:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Another thing: > > As many others notice, besides Trump lying about many aspects of the issue, the big picture shows just waste and disregard for the well-being of Americans. Because you will be glad to vote for Trump it also means that you are glad that even less funding will be available for (ironically what he claims to support) military families and other projects sacrificed on an item that Trump had to lie and continue to lie about how effective it is when dealing with the issue. > > [Trump Raids Elementary Schools to Pay for Wall; Mexico Off Hook](https://www.thedailybeast.com/defense-department-reveals-military-projects-that-will-lose-funding-to-pay-for-border-wall) That’s the thing. They don’t give a fuck about the military or military families. They never did. It was all a lie from the very beginning. As for lying about many issues, he lies about ALL issues, and ALL parts of ALL issues. And then lies about the lies. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2020, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/171 "2020-01-26T14:32:48Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But, again, it’s not quite right to say I’m saying _Democrats_ can’t be trusted. > > After all, the point is that I gave Obama, who to the best of my knowledge never called for decriminalization, the benefit of the doubt; and then I gave Clinton, who to the best of my knowledge never called for decriminalization, the benefit of the doubt. And if this year’s Democratic candidate takes the same approach, why, I’m open to giving _them_ the benefit of the doubt likewise. > > In what way? Again, if the eventual Dem nominee says “hey, I figure on taking the same approach that Obama did on this issue,” then I’m of course willing to say “oh, well, then, sure, looking at how that went, the evidence seems to be on your side; so, yeah, benefit of the doubt; I’ll trust you; don’t let me down.” Fair enough. I still consider your single issue stance to be very strange. That you would jeopardize so many other key (progressive) issues that you claim to support, just to ensure a very narrow and specific course of action on immigration is puzzling to me. It would be easy to comprehend if it could be fairly said that, all other things being equal, Trump’s immigration policy is more in line with your values. But that is not at all the case. None of his policies and actions appear to align with those you claim to support, except those on immigration. And the latter has been shown to be problematic, to say the least. Thus, I remain completely baffled by your world views. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2020, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/172 "2020-01-26T19:44:54Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Fair enough. I still consider your single issue stance to be very strange. That you would jeopardize so many other key (progressive) issues that you claim to support, just to ensure a very narrow and specific course of action on immigration is puzzling to me. I’m beginning to not be surprised, just look at his pathetic dodge of my question if he considers guys like me to be criminals. People that were war refugees, who entered illegally, and then Reagan and **other Republican presidents** were forced to be human and offer amnesty to people like me. As you mention, other issues should be considered in voting for a cruel ignoramus, and one pertinent issue that will affect immigration: global warming,[is being criminally ignored by Trump and his henchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22101693&postcount=17), [never mind that the future](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-climate-change-is-driving-emigration-from-central-america) now [looks more likely to get a **worse** refugee crisis than what we have now](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-climate-crisis-migration-and-refugees/), TOWP just concentrates at how funny some democrats reacted to Trump’s incompetency and abuses, and yet he still continues to consider voting to let the current (mis) administration to continue to burn the world. And get more likely the opposite of that he thinks he would get. [Nice work breaking it “hero”.](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2020, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/173 "2020-01-26T20:22:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I’m beginning to not be surprised, just look at his pathetic dodge of my question if he considers guys like me to be criminals. People that were war refugees, who entered illegally, and then Reagan and **other Republican presidents** were forced to be human and offer amnesty to people like me. What is your weird obsession with this? I said that I don’t know enough to weigh in about your situation, because, well, I _don’t_; you call that a “pathetic dodge”, but what the heck is the alternative? Give you a flat “yes” or “no” when _I don’t know?_ Why would you even _want_ a “yes” or a “no” from me in that case? (It doesn’t strike me as especially reasonable to ask for a yes-or-no answer in such a scenario, but it also doesn’t even strike me as _interesting_: once you’ve heard me say that I don’t know, why would it even matter whether I then say “no” or “yes”? What would either answer even _mean,_ apart from being a lie?) ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2020, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/174 "2020-01-26T22:01:50Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > What is your weird obsession with this? I said that I don’t know enough to weigh in about your situation, because, well, I _don’t_; you call that a “pathetic dodge”, but what the heck is the alternative? Give you a flat “yes” or “no” when _I don’t know?_ Why would you even _want_ a “yes” or a “no” from me in that case? > > (It doesn’t strike me as especially reasonable to ask for a yes-or-no answer in such a scenario, but it also doesn’t even strike me as _interesting_: once you’ve heard me say that I don’t know, why would it even matter whether I then say “no” or “yes”? What would either answer even _mean,_ apart from being a lie?) Well, you have very strong feelings about who should or should not be allowed to stay and what laws should be in place to help guide those decisions. It doesn’t seem all that strange for **GIGObuster** to want to know your thoughts on the criteria you use to draw those conclusions. A few hypothetical scenarios would suffice as an illustration without getting into the specifics of his situation. Or, who knows, perhaps he can persuade you to reconsider based on insight/information you lack. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2020, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/175 "2020-01-26T23:47:57Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Well, you have very strong feelings about who should or should not be allowed to stay and what laws should be in place to help guide those decisions. It doesn’t seem all that strange for **GIGObuster** to want to know your thoughts on the criteria you use to draw those conclusions. A few hypothetical scenarios would suffice as an illustration without getting into the specifics of his situation. Or, who knows, perhaps he can persuade you to reconsider based on insight/information you lack. Well, flip that around for a bit: you said, a little while ago, that you are _“not aware of a significant voting base that would support that kind of policy even if it was put forward. So to a large extent, I believe your fears are unfounded, and I would go even so far as to call them irrational.”_ Since you mentioned that you’re not aware of a _significant_ voting base before you then talked of unfoundedness and irrationality, which seemed pretty “strong”, I of course asked you how well you think it’s polling — thinking that maybe you were saying you were aware of the numbers, but didn’t find them significant. You replied that you would have to do some research; and so I shrugged, because, hey, I figured that was true as well as _satisfactory_: if you don’t actually happen to know, then (a) okay; and (b) I wouldn’t characterize your reply as some kind of, uh, “pathetic dodge”: if you do feel like looking into it and then saying more, why, then, fine by me; but until and unless you bother, then I’m genuinely okay with what struck me as an honest answer. I gave **GIGObuster** an honest answer: I _don’t_ feel that I happen to know enough to weigh in on that question; and I don’t ask more of you — or him — than I give in return, by which I mean I don’t insist on getting or giving a binary yes-or-no answer whenever “I don’t know” happens to be the truth. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2020, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/176 "2020-01-26T23:58:26Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > What is your weird obsession with this? I said that I don’t know enough to weigh in about your situation, because, well, I _don’t_; you call that a “pathetic dodge”, but what the heck is the alternative? Give you a flat “yes” or “no” when _I don’t know?_ Why would you even _want_ a “yes” or a “no” from me in that case? If Trump had been president then, not only he would have run afoul even more regarding international law, but I could have been then be separated from my family, maybe forever. It is not an obsession, it is just empathy to other Salvadorans and other groups that are in a very similar situation now. And empathy is indeed a human quality. Your still pathetic defense for not answering is because **you are appealing to your ignorance** , just saying here that it is a very underwhelming reason to use as a justification to vote for Trump. Indeed, you are ignoring a lot to assume your position. That ignorance is crucial because it would indeed undermine your binary position that you think Democrats have; as the evidence already showed, it is only under some exceptions on not using criminal statutes as many past administrations (including Republicans) did before is that the Democrats are basing their protest and demand of **specific** decriminalizations that the current administration should look at. Just because of that ignorance that you reported there you should already reconsider your position or study more about the history and how extreme and unnecessarily vindictive the current administration is. (Not to mention racist when considering against who they are concentrating their efforts and how Trump’s anti science **that he will ramp up if he wins again** will make the refugee crisis worse than it is now.) On Edit: Well, TOWP, as I noted, yours is not really much of an honest answer, it is really a very ignorant answer. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/177 "2020-01-27T00:26:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Just because of that ignorance that you reported there you should already reconsider your position or study more about the history …_why?_ Say I go study more and come back and declare either that (a) okay, having looked into it, I now _do_ happen to consider you to be a criminal; or that (b) having looked into it, I can now say that I _don’t_ happen to consider you to be a criminal. What would _either_ shift from an honest “I don’t know” mean for my position? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/178 "2020-01-27T01:06:04Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > …_why?_ Says the whiny kid 🙂 > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Say I go study more and come back and declare either that (a) okay, having looked into it, I now _do_ happen to consider you to be a criminal; or that (b) having looked into it, I can now say that I _don’t_ happen to consider you to be a criminal. What would _either_ shift from an honest “I don’t know” mean for my position? This is still whining, and ignoring the point, yes by conceding that you do not know the evidence then it shows that you are honestly going to support your ignorance, that is an acknowledgment that one should withdraw from a discussion, unless the point is to show to others the dismal ignorance that they are attempting to use as justification for adopting a bad position. By educating yourself you may still reach for option (a), but that of course then would lead to point out that not even during Arpaio’s rule I was found to be a criminal, so you would be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/179 "2020-01-27T01:14:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > This is still whining, and ignoring the point, yes by conceding that you do not know the evidence then shows that you are honestly going to support your ignorance, that is an acknowledgment that one should withdraw from a discussion, unless the point is to show to others the dismal ignorance that they are attempting to use as justification for adopting a bad position. You’re not answering my question. You asked whether I consider you a criminal; I said I don’t know. I’ve asked you what _either_ shift from an honest “I don’t know” — to a “yes” or a “no” — would mean for my position; you refuse to answer. I’m answering in good faith; are you? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/180 "2020-01-27T01:40:38Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You’re not answering my question. > > You asked whether I consider you a criminal; I said I don’t know. I’ve asked you what _either_ shift from an honest “I don’t know” — to a “yes” or a “no” — would mean for my position; you refuse to answer. I’m answering in good faith; are you? Me too, you are just relying on ignorance so as to not to confront why is that your position is **also** wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620.md?page=10)