You have now changed the question.
Go away.
But it’s close enough. I’ll take it. An eye for an eye…
…eventually leads to The Kingdom Of The Blind.
It doesn’t. As I already pointed out to you, I am opposed to the death penalty. I just don’t think your arguments against it are very convincing.
Literally millions? That is a surprisingly large number. Cite? Or is it another exaggeration.
And I think he *does *understand.
A falser dichotomy is when you offer a choice between two options, and say that ONE must be picked, when in fact they are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have both, or neither.
It looks to me like that’s exactly what you have done.
Perhaps you would care to explain how it isn’t.
Thanks. I was just too annoyed to state it so clearly.
When there’s over 10 million illegal immigrants in the US I am baffled why anyone would be shocked to learn there’s millions of babies born to them.
thank you.
And IMHO, Ibn Warraq did not truly offer a false dichotomy because he was asking what was more important - not stating those were the only options available.
Pjen,
Love ya, baby. Truly. But don’t tell other posters to ‘go away’ so dismissively. To quote Malcolm Reynolds, “I’d consider it a kindness.”
I’m at work so I wasn’t trying to dodge your question particularly since the answer that millions of babies have been born to mothers in the US is widely known.
And no it wasn’t a false dichotomy. I asked which was morally worse.
Denying citizenship to millions of people simply because their parents were immigrants(legally or illegally) or executing a small number of murderers?
No I didn’t, nor did I engage in personal insults.
So which would you find morally worse?
A)If the US no longer automatically granted citizenship to he children of immigrants(legal or illegal) and instead adopted a policy common in many European countries while it stopped executing a small number of murderers?
Or
B)The US continued to execute a small number of murderers but also continued to automatically grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the US rather than adopting a European approach.
I would personally prefer European nations adopt less bigoted policy regarding citizenship and the US abandon the death penalty but of the above options, I think B is clearly preferable and more civilized.
What do you think?
Thanks.
You don’t think it’s a false dilemma? Fine, call it whatever you want. But it’s certainly an irrelevant question. The children of illegal immigrants have no connection to the death penalty.
I think it is fortunate that we don’t have to choose one over the other, and that finding something to be morally bad does not preclude us from addressing things that aren’t quite as morally bad.
Right, call it an irrelevant question. We don’t don’t need to go to the Logical Fallacies for Internet Arguments Dictionary quite so often.
When someone has been repeatedly insisting throughout this thread that the US is vastly less “civilized” than countries which do refuse to grant citizenship to the children of immigrants it’s extremely relevant what policies gauge how “civilized” a country is.
Perhaps Pjen can tell us which is more uncivilized, denying millions citizenship because their parents were immigrants or executing a small number of murderers.
I would guess it would depend on how one’s personal priorities lay…and how one phrases the question. Which one is more uncivilized-Denying a transfer of citizenship, or killing innocent prisoners because you can’t be bothered to spend the time or money to sort them out from the guilty ones?
Question – who invented the concentration camp? (Hint: it wasn’t the Third Reich)
Got any cite for a country that does not have any means of establishing citizenship at birth? Or perhaps you erred in using the term accident of birth. It includes racial makeup as well as place and circumstances of birth, among many factors.
[voice in my head]
This is not the Pit. Be nice. This is not the Pit. be nice.
[/voice in my head]
It’s not unclear at all in the US. SCOTUS settled the matter in 1898. In the US v Wong Kim Ark decision all children born in the United States are US citizen regardless of the status of their parents with the narrow Exceptions of the children of persons* not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and excepting Indians not taxed. Subsequent law granted citizenship to Indians not taxed.
*Children of diplomats or soldiers of invading armies, for example, would not be US citizens.