Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:09 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Dauric wrote:Spoilered for tangential:

Personal property, the ability to feel some degree of ownership and control over access for a space are important to us as individuals, to our ability to -be- individuals outside of our deepest thoughts, to feel comfortable that we have a place to be individuals without being judged by those in the social constructs that surround us for our individuality.

It's with this regard that personal property, the ability to "own" places and things, -is- important to people so that we can manifest evidence of our completeness as people and to 'own' the choice of how much we want others to see that individuality.


sure, but you're conflating private and personal property, as, to varying degrees, are everyone who is arguing from the standpoint of "obviously everyone who already lives in this arbitrarily decided and already genocidally-stolen set of made up borders country has a clear and proprietary right to be arbiters of the entire plot of land since we own it now. not everyone starts from the fundamental principle that private property is reasonable or even remotely ethical, but much of this conversation seems to revolve around accepting that without even examining it as a given. without taking that as a given the extrapolation of the metaphor from "letting strangers crash on your couch" to "letting migrants onto this swath of land" is utterly nonsensical and needs to be defended from a more fundamental state than people are beginning from here.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:38 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Ignoring other inequities in this statement (like refugees having more health problems both mental and physical after what they've generally been through that have made them refugees), can you see how expecting someone to be able to afford their own place even with a job in 12 months might be unreasonable?
Sure, but I also know the 36 month minimum would be countered with 0 and figure 12 is where the compromise would be made, that 12 would also have a defined and easy extension process (ie - at any point more than one week from the end date the occupancy can be extended by 12 months via a written or verbal request in the form of "ay, I need more time" or similar in whatever language the occupant(s) speak).

And there's also the presumption of "Of fucking course American Healthcare is getting sorted out in this"
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Fri Oct 05, 2018 1:24 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:... we, the people already living in a country, are deciding on who and how many and under what conditions other people get to live in the country with us.
Second time of reading this, something about the tyrrany of the majority hit me: you didn't specify "born elsewhere." I know you said "the people already living in a country," but people who entered illegally, people who overstayed visas, people who were smuggled in aged 8 and forced to work in brothels for the next six years then kicked out because they were too old to be of interest to the customers any more and so on are all already living in the country, and the majority, distorted by the electoral college in your case, of those who get to vote are deciding whether they get to continue living there.

To take the housemate and sofa thing as an analogy, one of four people living in the house won't shut up about that one Italian guy who stole his sandwich five years ago, so we don't open the door and let Kitty Genovese in.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

idonno
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Fri Oct 05, 2018 1:42 pm UTC

If national borders are just a scaled up version of private property borders, how do you handle foreigners that own land in the country? The scenario at the small scale allows full access to property sold to an entity from outside that border. If it is different at the national level, the comparison clearly does not scale and you have to defend what parts do and don't scale and why this is the case.

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Fri Oct 05, 2018 1:48 pm UTC

Spoiler:
natraj wrote:sure, but you're conflating private and personal property, as, to varying degrees, are everyone who is arguing from the standpoint of "obviously everyone who already lives in this arbitrarily decided and already genocidally-stolen set of made up borders country has a clear and proprietary right to be arbiters of the entire plot of land since we own it now. not everyone starts from the fundamental principle that private property is reasonable or even remotely ethical, but much of this conversation seems to revolve around accepting that without even examining it as a given. without taking that as a given the extrapolation of the metaphor from "letting strangers crash on your couch" to "letting migrants onto this swath of land" is utterly nonsensical and needs to be defended from a more fundamental state than people are beginning from here.


Does that distinction really matter here? Even if no private property were to exist, I'd have to assume it would be up to the existing community to decide who gets to join said community. Does the decision between "owner" and "decision maker" really make a difference with the analogy? The couch example presumes the owner of the couch decides who gets to use it. But if its a shared house presumably it would be up to the collective decision of the people who share the house to make the decision. Private vs personal there doesn't make any functional difference.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:03 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Is that an argument for locking people in a burning building?


Not quite the same. We're not forcing people to remain in a specific hellhole. We're just denying them a specific place of sanctuary. Now, sure, if everyone does likewise, that ends up being effectively the same, but it highlights that we're not the only option.

sardia wrote:As for the FBI investigation, I wonder if this is how Republicans felt when Bill Clinton had his tarmac chat with Loretta Lynch. Those pinky swear promises that nothing conspiratorial happened didn't satisfy you then. It takes a rare fish to recognize the partisan water he swims in affects his thinking.


Seems pretty similar to me. To an outside observer, yeah, Clinton's a political player, of course he's likely working the system to his advantage. Same, same. We can't credibly say that there's no partisan influence here pushing for a certain outcome.

I presume the FBI did their best with the time and limitations given, but the writing's kinda on the wall for this.

Dauric wrote:There's a recent study on the "Open Offices" trend, where companies are getting rid of cubicles in favor of shared desks and spaces. What it found was people in so-called Open Offices tended to isolate themselves with headphones and being focused on their computer screens rather than collaborating face-to-face with their co-workers the way they were 'supposed' to.


In terms of privacy and "ownership", I think it's perhaps relevant. Also, fuck open offices. They're the worst. Every chatty coworker is a distraction, and everyone interrupts one another.

It's a fun comparison because it's human territorial behavior that isn't direct ownership. My cubicle is identified by myself and others as "mine", even though I have no particular legal ownership rights. This is sort of similar to countries. There's a bond with the country for many that far exceeds any sort of ownership one can postulate.

idonno wrote:If national borders are just a scaled up version of private property borders, how do you handle foreigners that own land in the country? The scenario at the small scale allows full access to property sold to an entity from outside that border. If it is different at the national level, the comparison clearly does not scale and you have to defend what parts do and don't scale and why this is the case.


There are basically two tiers of ownership. Country ownership and private property ownership. The latter is pretty much subordinate to the former. If another country invades a given spot, your prior private ownership only matters as much as the invader wants it to. Now, maybe this isn't right, but it's how things are. And it means that since there are two tiers, when comparing the two tiers, the lower tier doesn't really matter to the higher tier. A Chinese investor buying a chunk of property in California does not give China any ownership over California at a national level.

Rent and sale of property between nations works like rent and sale of property between individuals, though.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:20 pm UTC

The biggest way the house analogy fails is that in the house, we have far more control over who we already share it with, so it would make sense for a unanimous vote being required instead of just a simple majority on any issues with the house.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:47 pm UTC

Does that distinction really matter here? Even if no private property were to exist, I'd have to assume it would be up to the existing community to decide who gets to join said community. Does the decision between "owner" and "decision maker" really make a difference with the analogy? The couch example presumes the owner of the couch decides who gets to use it. But if its a shared house presumably it would be up to the collective decision of the people who share the house to make the decision. Private vs personal there doesn't make any functional difference.

"community" is a dangerously flexible concept, in this context.

When I bought a house in a street, no one in the street had any legal right to exclude me. This is rather common - apparently streets are not the kind of communities that easily get exclusion rights. Same goes for neighbourhoods, villages, many groups that seem to be examplary cases of "communities". But at the national level, we suddenly find a "community" with all bells and whistles.

There's a well-known book on nationalism called "Imagined communities", imagined because a nation's members cannot possibly know each other. This is a fairly modern concept - the idea that your main community is a large nation, and by extension a nation-state with borders. It is definitely not a natural extension of some universal community-instinct, it's something people worked very hard and long at to create. Often with harsh consequences for those who did not fit.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:51 pm UTC

I blame the English.
...Maybe it was the Germans.

Nah...The Romans!
well...There was The Middle Kingdom....

The point?
What was the point, again?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:41 pm UTC

Kavanaugh just got confirmation. Lisa m. Voted no, and manchin voted yes. I think Lisa was a surprise, was expecting her to vote Yes.
Edit I mean they agreed to end debate. Formal voting happens tomorrow. Maybe flake flakes out, but it's pretty inevitable that Robert's is the new median swing Justice now.
Last edited by sardia on Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:47 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:46 pm UTC

sardia wrote:the thing with metaphors is they do what you want to sound good. Doesn't make it true.
CorruptUser wrote:The biggest way the house analogy fails is that in the house, we have far more control over who we already share it with, so it would make sense for a unanimous vote being required instead of just a simple majority on any issues with the house.
A metaphor is not an identity. It is a method of juxtaposing two different ideas to illustrate a particular commonality between them. And a metaphor is an illustration, not a proof. Faulting a metaphor for not being what it isn't intended to be is... disingenuous.

Zamfir wrote:In that light, the country-as-house metaphor doesn't look like a natural state. It's more like an exceptional response to warfare, gradually relaxed again in times of peace.
Well, yes. More generally, it's because warfare implies a "them" that the "us" needs to be protected from. That's what borders are about.
Spoiler:
N.B.: It's not whether opening borders is a good thing or not. The original question was whether or not the mere existence of borders is immoral. People (and nations) have the right to do stupid things. You have the absolute right to use Windows, buy lottery tickets, and tweet pictures of what you ate for lunch, and the fact that these are stupid things does not take that right away.
People gather together to live under certain rules. Rules are necessary because people would otherwise get away with doing bad things to each other, so they set up some sort of governance system. In a family, it's a parental dictatorship for the most part. Some countries do this too, but there are many other choices, both of rule sets, and of methods of creating rule sets. It is these rule sets that determines what constitutes the State in question. Geography is an important consideration for many reasons, including ease of enforcement and defense of those rule sets, as well as often being intimitely part of the rule set. Property rights, whatever they may be, are also part of the rule set for a given community, be it a family, a town, or a nation.

Borders are just the boundaries between people with different rule sets. Geographic borders are just the (naturally emerging) boundaries between people with different rule sets that live in different places. Being as borders are thus part of the idea of having people with different rule sets living in different places, for boders to be immoral, either {people with different rule sets} is immoral, or {people living in a geographic area} is immoral.

Tyndmyr wrote:A Chinese investor buying a chunk of property in California does not give China any ownership over California at a national level.
Uh... yes it does, though in a very diluted manner (because California is big and a single investor is small). That chunk of property gives the (Chinese) owner political influence and a vote (on certain issues). The decisions the investor makes about the property can influence the social makeup (and thus the political makeup) of the community. And this adds to "political ownership", which is one of the arguments against too high an immigration rate.

Zamfir wrote:When I bought a house in a street, no one in the street had any legal right to exclude me.
Yes they did - you had to buy (or rent) the house before you could live there. It's not the same as being voted in by the neighborhood, but you are legally excluded until at least somebody in the neighborhood sold you the house. Again, refer to what an "analogy" is and isn't. The differences between the thing and its analogue shouldn't blind one to the similarities being illustrated.

And the comment that brought all this up was the idea that the mere existence of borders was immoral, not that one or another border policy is or isn't a good idea.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:14 pm UTC

Well, yes. More generally, it's because warfare implies a "them" that the "us" needs to be protected from. That's what borders are about.

In this case, its very much the other way round. The borders came first, only much later grew the two sides into different groups. Thats how it often goes

idonno
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:37 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:There are basically two tiers of ownership. Country ownership and private property ownership. The latter is pretty much subordinate to the former. If another country invades a given spot, your prior private ownership only matters as much as the invader wants it to. Now, maybe this isn't right, but it's how things are. And it means that since there are two tiers, when comparing the two tiers, the lower tier doesn't really matter to the higher tier. A Chinese investor buying a chunk of property in California does not give China any ownership over California at a national level.


Typically more power comes with more responsibility so if country ownership possesses more power than a private ownership, it is reasonable to assume that it comes with more responsibilities and therefore you cannot simply scale up the responsibilities of private ownership and apply them on a national level. The actual ethical implications of this power and responsibility is what the immigration debate is about.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:45 pm UTC

I agree that the difference between personal and private property doesn't really matter here. (I think that that distinction is kind of hard to rigorously make, anyway, though I appreciate the intention behind trying to make it). In either case, we want a person living in a house to be able to exclude other people from their house. At least, I want that, and if you don't then I disagree with you vehemently. I want equality in the sense that everyone's got something, not in the sense that nobody has anything; and if nobody has a right to even say this is my home, my bed, my toothbrush, then that's nobody having anything. Usually, people defending personal property vs private property say that you still get all those things with personal property, so for our purposes that doesn't really make any difference.

The reason moving into a neighborhood isn't analogous to moving into a country or moving into a house is that you don't get any special services by virtue of being a resident of that neighborhood, services that need to be paid for by the residents of that neighborhood.

There are commons of the neighborhood, those being the streets, and maybe parks and things, and municipal services like police, but those are all paid for by a larger community of which you must already be a part to even be able to live there, the country/state/etc; or else which you are agreeing to pay an equal (not means-based) share by living there, in property taxes.

If countries worked like that, if there were no social services that people got just by virtue of being a resident, services that have to be paid for by the residents; or else if those services were paid for either by some kind of global organization of which immigrants were already a part; or else required to be paid by the residents regardless of their means; then I would say yeah, completely open borders, if you want to live here just buy a place here and live there.

But I want there to be social services provided to people unconditionally and paid for in proportion to one's means for paying for them, you know, social welfare like civilized countries have. Even basic country things like law enforcement and military strictly fall under that description too. So now, if living here means you become entitled to things that people already here may have to pay for, that's a reason for people already here to be concerned about who lives here. I'm not saying that that's an overriding justification for any particular immigration policy; again, just saying that it's not unreasonable for people in a country to be selective about who else comes into that country. That there is a debate to be had, and "ignore all borders" isn't the only reasonable option. I would really like to be able to ignore all borders, personally, but I recognize that that potentially conflicts with other things I would like too, like social services provided equally regardless of the recipient's means to pay for them. And I don't know what the resolution to that conflict is, so I'm not pushing any particular policy, just saying that it's a reasonable question to debate.

Also, if you could just buy or sell a room in a house, that would make houses like neighborhoods -- maybe like neighborhoods with an HOA, since you'd have to have some kind of flat fee per housemate to fund maintenance of the commons. But that would basically make the house an apartment complex, and we already have apartment complexes, and they function the same way as neighborhoods of single family residences: you just move in.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:16 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote: But that would basically make the house an apartment complex, and we already have apartment complexes, and they function the same way as neighborhoods of single family residences: you just move in.
...and we also have co-ops and condos, which don't work that way. In some cases you have to have board approval before you can move in. In that sense they work like countries.

These kinds of living arrangements go all the way back to Babylon. Perhaps even earlier.

Are they immoral?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:25 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Lisa m. Voted no ... I think Lisa was a surprise, was expecting her to vote Yes.

As an Alaskan, Murkowski's 'No' vote doesn't surprise me. She's basically a Democrat wearing a Republican hat (at least the way she and her office operate here). She lost the Republican nomination and immediately decided to run as a write-in alternate Republican. She won by pandering to the Alaska Native vote (not that that's a bad thing).
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:25 pm UTC

Our Governor did something similar. He was originally a Republican (though he never acted like one), and he knew he couldn't beat the incumbent on his own. He switched to Independent and joined forces with the other candidate (who is an Alaska Native) to gain the Alaska Native vote which was enough to get him elected. Now, neither Governor Walker nor Senator Murkowski are particularly well-liked by their former bases.

Pfhorrest wrote:But that would basically make the house an apartment complex, and we already have apartment complexes, and they function the same way as neighborhoods of single family residences: you just move in.

Most apartment complexes still have a waiting period to allow for background checks.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:44 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:But that would basically make the house an apartment complex, and we already have apartment complexes, and they function the same way as neighborhoods of single family residences: you just move in.

Most apartment complexes still have a waiting period to allow for background checks.


In California and New York, yes. Other states, not so much.

It's a byproduct of tenant protection laws. Much like jobs, the longer it takes to get rid of someone the more hoops you have to jump through just to get in there in the first place.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:18 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:As an Alaskan, Murkowski's 'No' vote doesn't surprise me. She's basically a Democrat wearing a Republican hat (at least the way she and her office operate here). She lost the Republican nomination and immediately decided to run as a write-in alternate Republican. She won by pandering to the Alaska Native vote (not that that's a bad thing).


If you only go along with the party 95% of the time, then you are a RINO! Like, for you to be considered a Republican by you far-right extremist types, you have to be absolutely unwavering in your willingness to completely disregard ethics to push the concept of a libertarian theocracy, where the government only intervenes in private enterprise in order to protect the interests of Christians. You are killing so many people, and your only concern is for ideological purity.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Mutex
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:26 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Yablo wrote:As an Alaskan, Murkowski's 'No' vote doesn't surprise me. She's basically a Democrat wearing a Republican hat (at least the way she and her office operate here). She lost the Republican nomination and immediately decided to run as a write-in alternate Republican. She won by pandering to the Alaska Native vote (not that that's a bad thing).


If you only go along with the party 95% of the time, then you are a RINO! Like, for you to be considered a Republican by you far-right extremist types, you have to be absolutely unwavering in your willingness to completely disregard ethics to push the concept of a libertarian theocracy, where the government only intervenes in private enterprise in order to protect the interests of Christians. You are killing so many people, and your only concern is for ideological purity.

Actually she only votes in line with Trump's position a paltry 83% of the time:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/co ... murkowski/

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:42 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:If you only go along with the party 95% of the time, then you are a RINO! Like, for you to be considered a Republican by you far-right extremist types ...

I may be Conservative, but I'm far from "far-right extremist."

... you have to be absolutely unwavering in your willingness to completely disregard ethics to push the concept of a libertarian theocracy, where the government only intervenes in private enterprise in order to protect the interests of Christians.

Nor am I advocating theocracy.

You are killing so many people, and your only concern is for ideological purity.

Nor am I killing anyone or striving for ideological purity. Either you have me confused with someone else, or you are intentionally projecting upon me. Either way, you should stop.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:12 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:But that would basically make the house an apartment complex, and we already have apartment complexes, and they function the same way as neighborhoods of single family residences: you just move in.

Most apartment complexes still have a waiting period to allow for background checks.
Are you implying anything with this or are you just making an observation? I would think at this point it's clear that you need to defend your claim that the allegedly fundamental concept of uninvited strangers doesn't change with scale.
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

duodecimus
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby duodecimus » Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:18 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:Nor am I killing anyone or striving for ideological purity. Either you have me confused with someone else, or you are intentionally projecting upon me. Either way, you should stop.

In much the same way as some pro lifers see all democrats as baby murderers, some of the more liberal side see the Trump immigrant baby camps/insert atrocity here(oh god why are there options) and lash out at everyone who voted for him, or identifies with that side of politics.

I do wonder who a pro life person who sees brown children as people votes for these days. Which set of baby killers are the lesser evil?

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:28 pm UTC

Weeks I can't tell if you're addressing me or Yablo, but I think I have been defending the principle behind the analogy pretty well. Wherever it's been pointed out that the breaks, I've pointed out where the situations being compared are different and why that changes the principles involved, and how each situation would have to be changed to make the principles applicable to it different.

For example, one thing I didn't really explicitly address earlier: I don't want to have to share my house with homeless people, because I live and work in a tiny trailer and the person would have to occupy either where I sleep or where I work at all times. If I owned an enormous property, I'd be way more inclined to just let people stay on it out of charity, or might even donate some of it as a homeless shelter or something. If country borders are analogous to property lines, but our country is more like an enormous property than it is like my tiny trailer, then our national immigration policies can afford to be more generous and charitable than my let-homeless-people-stay-with-me policy can be. But the principles involved are still the same, and there are still limits, and it's still a reasonable question to ask what those limits are, even if the differing particulars make the answers to those questions come up differently.

And for the record (and back on topic), I do strongly disapprove of the Trump administration's immigration policies. But that doesn't mean that all border control has to go and it's unreasonable to even ask what those policies should be.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:37 pm UTC

duodecimus wrote:I do wonder who a pro life person who sees brown children as people votes for these days. Which set of baby killers are the lesser evil?


Oh that's easy. The pro-lifers tend to be in favor of abortion when the baby is black or mixed race.

Richard Nixon wrote:Link
There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white
*beat*
Or a rape.


Of course, Nixon was the President under which Roe v Wade occurred, and of the 7 SC justices that voted in favor of legalizing abortion, Nixon appointed Burger, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist, and was VP when Brennan and Stewart apointed. Yes, that's right, 6 out of the 7 justices that voted for Roe v Wade were appointed by the Republicans Nixon or Eisenhower.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:44 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
duodecimus wrote:I do wonder who a pro life person who sees brown children as people votes for these days. Which set of baby killers are the lesser evil?


Oh that's easy. The pro-lifers tend to be in favor of abortion when the baby is black or mixed race.

Richard Nixon wrote:Link
There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white
*beat*
Or a rape.


Of course, Nixon was the President under which Roe v Wade occurred, and of the 7 SC justices that voted in favor of legalizing abortion, Nixon appointed Burger, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist, and was VP when Brennan and Stewart apointed. Yes, that's right, 6 out of the 7 justices that voted for Roe v Wade were appointed by the Republicans Nixon or Eisenhower.

That doesn't sound like the position of Republicans today. According to my doctor buddies, Republicans believe in secret legal abortion for themselves (they are special/innocent), and banning/restricting abortion for skanks.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:48 pm UTC

And mandatory abortion for brown people?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:56 pm UTC

Nah, they have the police do that for them.

But not before bankrupting the communities with brown people by making them pay for the education and other services first without ever living long enough to get a job that pays back to the community.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:13 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:The reason moving into a neighborhood isn't analogous to moving into a country or moving into a house is that you don't get any special services by virtue of being a resident of that neighborhood, services that need to be paid for by the residents of that neighborhood.

There are commons of the neighborhood, those being the streets, and maybe parks and things, and municipal services like police, but those are all paid for by a larger community of which you must already be a part to even be able to live there, the country/state/etc; or else which you are agreeing to pay an equal (not means-based) share by living there, in property taxes.
  • Neighborhoods pay for and maintain parks, communal gardens, and playgrounds -- completely on their own with no interference on the municipal level -- all the time. I've literally written checks for this.
  • Neighborhood watches are a thing, too.
  • Neighborhoods will sometimes collectively own streets like alleyways (again, with zero municipal interference) and maintain them as a collective (again, I've literally written checks for this).
  • If you don't like the neighborhood analogy, fine; scale it up to a town. Should towns get to decide who does and doesn't enter them? Who does and doesn't get to live in those spaces? Towns have plenty of services that they provide at a cost to the occupants of those towns, after all.
  • Even if all of this were bogus, the 'special services' you get by moving into a house are the 'special services' of the house existing prior to you arriving. Neighborhoods also exist before you arrive.
The "House as a Country" analogy also lets you hide a lot of essential realities and dangers of how we approach immigration. For example, we accept that someone might say "No Black Guests In My House!". We think they're a fucking asshole, but we accept that you are allowed to control who does and doesn't get to stay in your home. We do not accept that someone might say "No Black Immigrants In My Country!" (well, unless they're Trump, I guess).

Look. Let me help you out here: Gated communities are a thing. Use that as your metaphor, okay? Stop it with the house thing, it's not working, and it's never going to work. Neighborhoods, communities, towns, counties, states -- these are all much, much better metaphors than someone's house.

You can argue that a community of Jewish Holocaust survivors and their descendants shouldn't have to allow Neo-Nazis to move in next door, and yeah, there's a debate there and we can have that discussion. And that can have consequences in regards to the debate on immigration! But if you're just going to stick with this house metaphor, no discussion can happen -- because everyone has to bend and twist their narrative into a pretzel to make it fit into this wonky analogy that in no way represents how the reality of immigration works.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:27 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Of course, Nixon was the President under which Roe v Wade occurred, and of the 7 SC justices that voted in favor of legalizing abortion, Nixon appointed Burger, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist, and was VP when Brennan and Stewart apointed. Yes, that's right, 6 out of the 7 justices that voted for Roe v Wade were appointed by the Republicans Nixon or Eisenhower.

True, but Eisenhower wasn't exactly the most conservative, and Nixon's policies were all over the place. I don't know the background for the nominations/confirmations of each of those justices, but it happens from time to time that a president will nominate a person with an opposing ideology for a lifetime appointment in order to get a particular other project pushed through Congress.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

idonno
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:28 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I agree that the difference between personal and private property doesn't really matter here. (I think that that distinction is kind of hard to rigorously make, anyway, though I appreciate the intention behind trying to make it). In either case, we want a person living in a house to be able to exclude other people from their house. At least, I want that, and if you don't then I disagree with you vehemently. I want equality in the sense that everyone's got something, not in the sense that nobody has anything; and if nobody has a right to even say this is my home, my bed, my toothbrush, then that's nobody having anything. Usually, people defending personal property vs private property say that you still get all those things with personal property, so for our purposes that doesn't really make any difference.

The reason moving into a neighborhood isn't analogous to moving into a country or moving into a house is that you don't get any special services by virtue of being a resident of that neighborhood, services that need to be paid for by the residents of that neighborhood.

There are commons of the neighborhood, those being the streets, and maybe parks and things, and municipal services like police, but those are all paid for by a larger community of which you must already be a part to even be able to live there, the country/state/etc; or else which you are agreeing to pay an equal (not means-based) share by living there, in property taxes.

If countries worked like that, if there were no social services that people got just by virtue of being a resident, services that have to be paid for by the residents; or else if those services were paid for either by some kind of global organization of which immigrants were already a part; or else required to be paid by the residents regardless of their means; then I would say yeah, completely open borders, if you want to live here just buy a place here and live there.

But I want there to be social services provided to people unconditionally and paid for in proportion to one's means for paying for them, you know, social welfare like civilized countries have. Even basic country things like law enforcement and military strictly fall under that description too. So now, if living here means you become entitled to things that people already here may have to pay for, that's a reason for people already here to be concerned about who lives here. I'm not saying that that's an overriding justification for any particular immigration policy; again, just saying that it's not unreasonable for people in a country to be selective about who else comes into that country. That there is a debate to be had, and "ignore all borders" isn't the only reasonable option. I would really like to be able to ignore all borders, personally, but I recognize that that potentially conflicts with other things I would like too, like social services provided equally regardless of the recipient's means to pay for them. And I don't know what the resolution to that conflict is, so I'm not pushing any particular policy, just saying that it's a reasonable question to debate.

Also, if you could just buy or sell a room in a house, that would make houses like neighborhoods -- maybe like neighborhoods with an HOA, since you'd have to have some kind of flat fee per housemate to fund maintenance of the commons. But that would basically make the house an apartment complex, and we already have apartment complexes, and they function the same way as neighborhoods of single family residences: you just move in.


Bringing apartment complexes and neighborhoods into this, we have laws adjusting who you can keep out because we recognize that as the scale increases the implications for society change. The difference between an apartment and a house is minuscule compared to the difference between a country and a house. The logic of a house simply does not scale which is why the actual arguments defending border control, like increased burden on social services, are substantially different from the arguments for home ownership.


"But I want there to be social services provided to people unconditionally and paid for in proportion to one's means for paying for them" Why do you want these services but wish for them to be provided in a policy framework that excludes people from being able to access them based on where they were born and where they are currently located? When you get right down to it, a lot of immigration policy is really about denying less privileged people access to a location where they can have better opportunity to work and improve their life.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:37 pm UTC

Also:
Yablo wrote:I may be Conservative, but I'm far from "far-right extremist."
Look, I'm trying to be nice, but anyone who thinks the Mueller investigation is just a partisan hack-job and that Trump is one of the greatest Presidents in modern memory is probably a far-right extremist. I mean, I don't literally have all of your views here in front of me to fact-check, but these points alone are two blazing red flags for being "far-right extremist". Like, both those points are essentially Breitbart headlines. You know that, right?

I'm not going to accuse you of advocating theocracy, or killing people, or striving for ideological purity -- but yeah, you sound like a far-right extremist. One who comes off as pretty partisan in your perspective (while weirdly projecting partisanship everywhere else you see -- like, you do know that most of us here think the Democrats are a bunch of shits, right?).
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:38 pm UTC

idonno wrote:When you get right down to it, a lot of immigration policy is really about denying less privileged people access to a location where they can have better opportunity to work and improve their life.


A lot of it, yes, because while economics and welfare aren't exactly zero sum games, depending on the situation* letting in even relatively decent people can still cause you harm.

*And before I get the replies I'm expecting, that is not currently the case in the US/Europe. We currently have enough that letting in decent people is still a plus.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:48 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Look, I'm trying to be nice, but anyone who thinks the Mueller investigation is just a partisan hack-job and that Trump is one of the greatest Presidents in modern memory is probably a far-right extremist. I mean, I don't literally have all of your views here in front of me to fact-check, but these points alone are two blazing red flags for being "far-right extremist". Like, both those points are essentially Breitbart headlines. You know that, right?

First, I'd like to thank you for at least being honest and actively trying to promote discussion. You and I may not agree on much, and our positions are often pretty far apart, but unlike some others in this thread, you make reasonable arguments rather than resorting to insults and attacks.

I suppose I can see why you might think I'm a far-right extremist, and I'm not currently in a position to mount an exhaustive defense, but I can do a little. I don't necessarily think the Mueller investigation is a hack-job, but I do think it's highly-partisan in foundation and motivation. And as for Trump, recent memory being what it is, we haven't had many truly great presidents in my lifetime. With Ronald Reagan taking my first spot, Donald Trump is the only other since with whom I have been more happy than not. I don't care for his attitude most days, I think he needs to lay off social media and focus on his job rather than his appearance, and I don't think anyone but China should be subjected to steep tariffs right now, but yes, I am otherwise happy with much of what he and his administration have done.

As for far-right extremism, (while I prefer not to use it as a primary source, I will in the interests of expediency) Wikipedia says far-right politics describes "Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist or reactionary views." The only terms there which describe me are anti-communist and reactionary. I have never looked at members of other races as inferior or less-deserving, so most of the rest of that definition is way off the mark, too.

Am I a Republican? Yes. Am I conservative? Definitely. Am I far-right and/or an extremist? Not at all.

I'm not going to accuse you of advocating theocracy, or killing people, or striving for ideological purity -- but yeah, you sound like a far-right extremist. One who comes off as pretty partisan in your perspective

I'm don't hold my views and values because I'm a Republican. I'm a Republican because, of the two major parties, the Republican party fits me far better than the Democrat party does.

you do know that most of us here think the Democrats are a bunch of shits, right?).

I do know that, but it's not always the impression I get. I think politics in general tends to draw that sort of person more often than it draws the best sort of person. That goes for Democrats, Republicans, and many third-party or Independent politicians, too.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:38 am UTC

Yablo wrote:I suppose I can see why you might think I'm a far-right extremist, and I'm not currently in a position to mount an exhaustive defense, but I can do a little.
I understand and appreciate the difficulty (and expenditure in energy) in defending one's self against accusations as non-specific as "far-right extremism"; conversely, it takes very little energy for me to make such an accusation.

That being said...
Yablo wrote:I don't necessarily think the Mueller investigation is a hack-job, but I do think it's highly-partisan in foundation and motivation.
That's what a hack job is. Look, I don't want to dig up year-old posts you've made and force you to defend them, but:
Yablo wrote:He never should have been appointed in the first place. There is a huge conflict of interest deal going on with just about everyone involved with his side of the investigation. It's nice to see that after a year's work trying to dig up every piece of dirt they could, all they could come up with was a charge on Manafort (which they've known about all along) for failing to properly disclose a lobbying connection to Ukraine.

The timing of the charges is a little suspect, too. Just when things are turning ugly for the Democrats over the Fusion GPS deal, Mueller jumps out with "We're filing an indictment! Look over here! Oh, but we won't tell you all about it until Monday. Still ... look this way all weekend. Talk about this, not about the real Russia collusion."
Here, you:
  • Characterize the Fusion GPS deal as "real Russia collusion" committed by the Democrats (this is an extremist far-right conspiracy theory).
  • Claim that Mueller (a lifelong Republican) might be aiding the Democrats in hiding their actual collusion (again, an extremist far-right conspiracy theory).
  • Reduce all the charges against Manafort to "failing to properly disclose a lobbying connection to Ukraine". Even back then, that would have been an absurd reduction, and plays into the notion of Mueller's investigation being a political hack-job (which is, again, an extremist far-right conspiracy theory). Manafort did way more shit than fail to disclose his "lobbying connection".
  • Claim that Mueller shouldn't have even been appointed in the first place. Why? Because...
Yablo wrote:For starters, every person on Mueller's team is one or more of the following: Huge Democratic Party donor. former Hillary Clinton legal representative, U.S. attorney fired by Trump.

I don't see any evidence to support the Trump-side theory that Mueller and Comey are close friends, but they did work closely at the FBI. That isn't a conflict of interest in and of itself, but it does lend to the appearance of a conflict, and that's enough reason for him to step down or be removed.
Over here, you:
  • Turn one "huge" Democratic party donor (James Quarles -- who also donated to Republican candidates, by the way!) into several. Unless, that is, you believe giving $750 makes you a "huge" Democratic donor.
  • Make the false claim that all seventeen members of Mueller's legal team are either 1) Huge Democratic donors (again, treating any value above 'zero' as huge, and ignoring cases where they gave to Republican candidates), former Hillary Clinton legal representatives (there is literally only one; Jeannie Rhee), or U.S. attorneys fired by Trump (literally, again, only one: Andrew Goldstein).
  • Can I hammer that point in for a sec? There are seventeen members of Mueller's legal team. Of them, seven donated to Democrats. One was fired by Trump. One represented Hillary Clinton. There's some overlap, but we'll treat them all as separate people. That leaves eight attorneys you didn't even account for. And yet, somehow, you concluded every single member of the team was at least one of these things. Again, these are the talking points of a far-right extremist.
  • Which brings me to... Mueller.
  • You state that Mueller -- a lifelong Republican, Vietnam war vet, and FBI agent who served with distinction and to bipartisan acclaim during one of the most confusing and controversial periods in modern American history (the wake of 9/11) -- should either step down or be removed from office. Why? Because he worked with Comey at the FBI, and that has the appearance of a conflict. We should remove him from his position because it "looks bad". This is, like -- quite possibly the best guy you could find for the job, the one guy you could trust to actually pursue truth over party, and you think we should remove him because... it "looks bad".
The point here isn't to force you to defend this year-old post, but to present you with the possibility that maybe you repeat a lot of factually wrong extremist right-wing talking points here.

Maybe the only reason people aren't pointing this out to you is because while it takes very little energy to make accusations like you've been making, it takes far more energy to address them (oh hey, look at that, I circled back round!).
Yablo wrote:I don't care for his attitude most days, I think he needs to lay off social media and focus on his job rather than his appearance, and I don't think anyone but China should be subjected to steep tariffs right now, but yes, I am otherwise happy with much of what he and his administration have done.
Except, I presume, the whole "we're shipping kids off to internment camps" thing. You at least seemed to take issue with that.
Yablo wrote:As for far-right extremism, (while I prefer not to use it as a primary source, I will in the interests of expediency) Wikipedia says far-right politics describes "Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist or reactionary views." The only terms there which describe me are anti-communist and reactionary. I have never looked at members of other races as inferior or less-deserving, so most of the rest of that definition is way off the mark, too.
No, it says it's used to describe. As in, "you can use it to describe these people". That doesn't mean that's what it is in its entirety.

You're ignoring the very first sentence:
Wikipedia wrote:Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies.
The stuff you've said and the positions you've presented here, while civilly offered, are definitely in line with extreme nationalism, nativism, and authoritarianism.

Being a far-right extremist doesn't make you a Nazi anymore than being a far-left extremist makes you a Stalinist.

EDIT: Apparently I forgot what 17 - 9 equals.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:13 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:59 am UTC

Also, while I'm here:
Pfhorrest wrote:For example, one thing I didn't really explicitly address earlier: I don't want to have to share my house with homeless people, because I live and work in a tiny trailer and the person would have to occupy either where I sleep or where I work at all times. If I owned an enormous property, I'd be way more inclined to just let people stay on it out of charity, or might even donate some of it as a homeless shelter or something. If country borders are analogous to property lines, but our country is more like an enormous property than it is like my tiny trailer, then our national immigration policies can afford to be more generous and charitable than my let-homeless-people-stay-with-me policy can be. But the principles involved are still the same, and there are still limits, and it's still a reasonable question to ask what those limits are, even if the differing particulars make the answers to those questions come up differently.

And for the record (and back on topic), I do strongly disapprove of the Trump administration's immigration policies. But that doesn't mean that all border control has to go and it's unreasonable to even ask what those policies should be.
1) I apologize if my "Our Country Is Not A House" position is coming off as hostile. I've had to go back and edit some of my posts to take some of the vitriol out of them. I appreciate that you disagree with the immigration policies as they are practiced in the United States underneath the Trump administration, and that you're only arguing that a country has the right to determine who does and doesn't get to be part of that country. I would even say I agree with you on your broader point: There are certainly cases where it's right and reasonable for a country to say: "No, you don't get to live here". The real issue is identifying what those cases are (but that's neither here nor there).

2) The reason I hate that house metaphor so much is how it treats communities. Communities are collectives of people working together to occupy the same space (physically, legally, financially, culturally, or otherwise). A community is made up of compromises -- it's a constant, ongoing conversation (both between its occupants and the outsiders it affects) that strives to achieve co-existence. It's complicated, it's messy, and it's a challenge to navigate. The house metaphor ignores all of that nuance and trades it in for a simple brand of "aw-shucks" authoritarian paternalism. It also glosses over questions like "who built this house in the first place?" (or, dare I say it, whether or not we built this house on top of a Native American burial ground).

To clarify: I don't think you're arguing for authoritarian paternalism! But the house metaphor plays into that. It builds on the paternalistic trope of "My House, My Rules", which is used to justify so much nonsense in America ("If you live in America, you ought to speak American!").

Our immigration policy shouldn't be based on who got here first, or who owns the house -- but rather, on a conversation that addresses our concerns, but also balances those concerns against the concerns of those who seek entry.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:25 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Our immigration policy shouldn't be based on who got here first, or who owns the house -- but rather, on a conversation that addresses our concerns, but also balances those concerns against the concerns of those who seek entry.


But should those concerns be given equal weights?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:50 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But should those concerns be given equal weights?
I am a utilitarian who rejects the notion that standing on a rock and shouting "Firstsies!" in some way grants you any moral authority over who else gets to stand on that rock. I also think tribalism and nativism are fundamentally awful things. So, in that sense, yeah. "Equal weight".

On the other hand, we are beholden to the communities that uplift and enrich us -- whether they are family, neighbors, towns, counties, states, or even countries. Sometimes, that means prioritizing their welfare over our own. Other times, it can mean prioritizing their welfare over the welfare of an outsider. So in that sense, no. Not "equal weight".

So, the answers are, in no particular order: "Yes", "No", "It's complicated", and "No amount of extra weight justifies letting someone die on your doorstep because it inconveniences you to let them in".

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:53 am UTC

The people arent exactly dying on our doorstep. In the case of, say, Syrians leaving the Turkish refugee camps, it's the equivalent of the guy leaving a homeless shelter, passing by the crummier houses, and depending upon whom you ask either asking/demanding to come in or sneaking in through your window.

You can argue about the starving man stealing bread to live, but that argument fails when the starving man walks past the bread to steal the caviar.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:03 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The people arent exactly dying on our doorstep. In the case of, say, Syrians leaving the Turkish refugee camps, it's the equivalent of the guy leaving a homeless shelter, passing by the crummier houses, and depending upon whom you ask either asking/demanding to come in or sneaking in through your window.

You can argue about the starving man stealing bread to live, but that argument fails when the starving man walks past the bread to steal the caviar.

That doesn't describe the syria situation at all. There's a large scale disaster with tons of refugees. The crappier nearby places are filled to the brim and are begging for help. The Westerners are getting miffed and angry that they are being asked at all. Go look up the ratio of refugees in the middle east compared to the developed countries.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests