I think that, at a minimum, we should deport people only to places they’ve been at an age where they’ve learned and are still likely to remember the language, IOW maybe 10-12 years old.
If there is no such place, and they’ve lived here since they were that age, then they’re morally our problem, not that of some other country.
Oh.
Wow. Just wow. I’m trying to imagine a scenario where the roles were reversed and we had a liberal president who brought us everything we want, except his policies resulted in separation of migrant families and these horrific conditions.
Could I say, “Gee, I feel bad about kids whose parents disappear while they’re at school, but at least I got my gun control!”?
Could I say, “These people in these overcrowded and unsanitary detention facilities- well who cares about that as long as I got my Supreme Court stacked with liberals!”?
The answer is of course not. I am not going to ignore human pain and suffering just because I’m happy with other things my president would be doing.
In my opinion, if application of a law results in crimes against humanity, the law must either be changed or ignored. What we’re hearing from conservatives now is the moral equivalent of the Nuremberg defense. Strict obedience to the letter of the law with zero regard for its impact on humanity is one of the hallmarks of fascism. The Republican Party is now the Fascist Party and is the enemy of humanity.
I guess the answer is that you try for more appeals to emotion.
I suppose when school kids read the Diary of Anne Frank and the horrors of the Nazis that’s an “appeal to emotion” as well. Twist the language in order to suit the needs of the regime at the expense of innocent children.
This government, in our name, is literally putting innocent children in cages. What are the people who claim they’re arming themselves to resist tyranny doing about it? Besides decrying incivility among those who protest it, that is.
It won’t be a pleasant campaign for them, or for any other excusers. This is how it happens, people. This is how.
What does your post mean?
Anytime someone presents an argument as one of morality, I pretty much reject it. The thing is, we probably don’t share the same sense of morality. Sure, there is likely heavy overlap because of shared experiences, etc. and we probably agree more than we disagree. But given we each work with our individual experiences, there are bound to be differences and that is where disagreements may arise. Arguing morality to me, is a fool’s errand and I leave it to religious zealots. Morality as a cudgel draped in righteousness can often lead to hyperbolic escalation.
I have my own sense of morality, and it informs my actions. I don’t expect others to conform to my morality.
Two things here. First, you’ve moved from the specific to the general. When you take some action, I don’t attribute it generally to people living in Germany, to males, to progressives, to leftists, etc. I prefer to treat people as individuals. Do you find it helpful to generalize and treat people as groups?
Second, when talking about the legal deportation of one individual who’s case worked through the court system for over 10 years and analogizing that to Nazis, gas chambers, etc. (or slavery and torture) you’ve gone really far on the hyperbolic escalation path. There’s not really a way to engage with this level of hyperbole.
That seems fine to me and if that were to come to pass I wouldn’t complain. If it doesn’t come to pass, I also don’t think it would be the downfall of the republic.
I think you may ignore human pain and suffering. We’d probably just disagree on what constitutes human pain and suffering.
Yep! The fact that the general response here is shocked gasps, as though you had proudly waltzed into a fancy dress party, dropped your trousers, and shat all over the floor should be a very clear sign that there’s something wrong with your approach.
I find that certain framings are fairly ubiquitous, and that when you assume them, you get highly useful results. Sort of like how, if you assume that the average Donald Trump supporter is arguing in bad faith, you will typically end up with a more accurate picture of what’s going on than if you assume they honestly want an honest debate.
This has been the common through-line I’ve seen again and again and again and again. I’ve seen it from every single person in this thread who has tried to excuse or minimize these atrocities. “Give me a reason, any reason, not to have to care about the suffering of my fellow man.” Go ahead - tell me I’m wrong.
We sent a schizophrenic homeless man to his death in a country he never lived in. You excused that with “well, that’s the law”.
It is not hyperbole to muse aloud about the dark places that level of amoral cruelty leads us.
How is it even possible to discuss the right or wrong approach to an issue while sidestepping morality? I can’t even conceive of it. Practicality, effectiveness, and pragmatism all presume some shared morality (i.e. improving the general welfare is good, increasing suffering is bad). Can you explain this?
One thing that helps understand is that most of what people consider to be morality is axiomatic and the sets of axioms that make up a moral code are not shared universally.
Of course, I’m not speaking for Bone. I’m just pointing out why an appeal to a so-called shared morality is fallacious.
I understand that folks have different senses of morality, I just don’t get how things like this can be discussed without talking about morality. I can’t even conceive of how such a discussion would go forward – even talking about “what works” or “what’s more efficient” requires morality-based assumptions.
So other than some practical, utilitarian basis, there’s no reason to argue for changes to the laws IYHO?
Slavery wasn’t the downfall of the Republic, though it did cause a brief interruption.
So no harm, no foul, right?
It took ten years of legal proceedings to come up with an outcome that seems to have been the most stupid and pointless possible (not to mention almost immediately fatal to the individual in question)? Sorry, but I’m having a little trouble being impressed with the efficiency and fairness of our legal system in this particular case.
Don’t fret, I won’t claim any of this represents the next best thing to Nazis, gas chambers, slavery or torture. I suppose one might, if so inclined, find echoes in the writings of Franz Kafka, in 1984 or Brazil, however.
Consider when there is a discussion about something where one participant is basing their argument on the teachings of the bible. For a non-Christian person, those arguments aren’t going to be persuasive.
I could be getting hung up on the term “morality”, but in my experience invocation of morality in argument is rarely used other than to shame.
ISTM that Civil Rights would not have gained majority support without “invocation of morality”. Certainly that’s true for gay rights and gay marriage in recent years – everyone I know who changed their opinion did so because they came to believe it was immoral to prevent gay couples from having the rights of marriage. Do you think these rights were advanced without “invocation of morality”?
Sometimes bringing up morality is necessary because shame is deserved.
Do you find it helpful to generalize and treat people as groups?
Whoa!
That exact kind of thinking is used far too often to justify wrongs, and should help show you that you could be wrong.
“if you assume that the average person wearing a hoodie is planning to shoplift, you will typically end up with a more accurate picture of what’s going on”
Do you see?
Your statement scares me, frankly.
I agree. I think what BPC’s post of is an example of stereotyping, and at least in some other contexts, I suspect he’d be horrified by the idea of using stereotypes in a similar fashion.
Well I’m sure the Right would never stereotype the Left using terms like snowflake, libtard, cuck, etc.
That would never happen, right? I’m sure if they did you’d be horrified by that as well.