Author Topic: Latino kids are getting separated from their parents. Whose fault is it?  (Read 2368 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1806
  • Darwins +362/-4
It seems that you are quick to judge people who disagree with you and you tend to ignore for those who agree.
Am I right?

To whom is this comment directed?

Offline John 3 16

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Darwins +5/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
To you.
If I ever stop showing up here.
You know I am unjustly banned by Mods.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13460
  • Darwins +411/-9
  • Gender: Male
I am quick to judge those I consider bat shit crazy.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Religions are the dingle berries on the butt hairs of civilization.

Offline John 3 16

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Darwins +5/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
albeto, you may not realize it but most of folks here have one standard for some people and the other standard for the others.
It's called double standard.
 
bigĀ·ot
?bi??t/Submit
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Unless otherwise you prove me wrong, why should I have a conversation with a bigot?
If I ever stop showing up here.
You know I am unjustly banned by Mods.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1806
  • Darwins +362/-4
It seems that you are quick to judge people who disagree with you and you tend to ignore for those who agree.
Am I right?

To whom is this comment directed?

To you.

No, you are wrong. I try to judge only the argument presented, not the personality of the poster. I do my best to do this in both directions. I don't like conversations that discuss tone because in my experience, they fall apart. They delve into perceived intentions and personalities and that creates a big ole mess I don't want any part of. Instead I try to ignore the presentation of the argument, and focus instead on the content of the argument, the ideas referenced, the details that support it. In other words, I do my best to don my Mr. Spock hat and ignore the stuff that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If my past comments about your immature jabs seem hypocritical, think I understand, and I apologize for the confusion. If it helps, you might know I had previously skimmed the thread, trying to ignore any personal commentaries. When you and I started to speak, there was still a lot of personal jabs that were frustrating for me in that they were excuses to avoid the points raised in response to your arguments, focusing instead on perceived intentions and personalities. They were distractions for you and I had hoped we could clear them aside and talk instead about the topic you raised. Also, they just seemed awfully petty and juvenile, and frankly I don't want to engage in bickering. That's not worth my time.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1806
  • Darwins +362/-4
albeto, you may not realize it but most of folks here have one standard for some people and the other standard for the others.
It's called double standard.

I know. I don't agree with your assessment.

Also, you're avoiding the topic. Again. This is getting to be rather fascinating to watch you find something, anything, to avoid addressing the criticism of your argument.

 
Quote
Unless otherwise you prove me wrong, why should I have a conversation with a bigot?

This is silly. If you think there's bigotry and double standards here you have two options that I can see right off the bat. One is point it out as it is happening. If you think I am engaging in it, give me specific examples so I can see what you're talking about. Making vague accusations without any evidence is inefficient. It lacks sufficient information, there are no details, it relies on personal assurances, in this case despite known information to the contrary. Interestingly, it is also how you describe people whose social and political views fall to the left of yours.

The other option you have is to bring your curser up to the right hand corner of your computer screen, click the little "X" and walk away. If you think you will have no choice but to have a conversation with a bigot here, and you shouldn't have to suffer such indignities, why in the world would you spend so much time here? It does give the appearance of trying to poke the beast that frightens you, like I said earlier. I don't want to speculate, but I can't think of another reason to be here. Perhaps you'd like to explain.

Why should I prove you wrong? Why is the onus on me to provide you with a safe space? Why isn't the onus is on you to stick to your argument? It's almost pathological how you will grab something, anything else to talk about rather than the objections raised to your beliefs. Also, did you catch how you set this up so the only way to "prove" I'm not a bigot is to agree with you? I did.

Finally, why are you so unwilling to address what I said about tampering with the democratic process as a greater threat to democracy than illegal immigrants? Why are you so unwilling to address the facts you have wrong, regarding the Trump administration's stated policy priorities and violent crime as it relates to immigrants who cross the border illegally? Why are you so adamant about protecting your beliefs? What is so frightening about changing your opinion?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 02:43:17 PM by albeto »

Offline stuffin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1657
  • Darwins +120/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I pulled this from an article on abortion, but I think it applies to J316 immigration issue.

"This is not a question for politicians," he says. "When your end goal is a political one, you will, without exception, exploit the pain and the suffering and the agony of those who face the issue in their daily reality, in their real life."
Don't stop smiling at the world and keep your head full of hope.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18407
  • Darwins +449/-26
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
It seems that you are quick to judge people who disagree with you and you tend to ignore for those who agree.
Am I right?

and of course, we still have baseless claims, with j316 unable to support his accusations.  Why do you choose to do this, j316?   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
To have no concern about the well-being of others is immoral.

Why?


Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18407
  • Darwins +449/-26
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
To have no concern about the well-being of others is immoral.

Why?

So, per this response by MM, to have no concern for the well being of others is moral?    I'm figuring on the usual BS that no one can have morals without MM's version of his god. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
To have no concern about the well-being of others is immoral.

Why?

So, per this response by MM, to have no concern for the well being of others is moral?    I'm figuring on the usual BS that no one can have morals without MM's version of his god.

Would you like to answer the question, rather than mocking it?

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
OAA, AKA 'Karma Police', why is it such a dumb question? Do you have an answer?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18407
  • Darwins +449/-26
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
To have no concern about the well-being of others is immoral.

Why?

So, per this response by MM, to have no concern for the well being of others is moral?    I'm figuring on the usual BS that no one can have morals without MM's version of his god.

Would you like to answer the question, rather than mocking it?

I'm not mocking it, though it does deserve to be mocked.  By your question, it seems that you want to claim that having no concern for others is moral, if you have to ask why it is not moral.   Christians claim that there is no morality except by their god.  However, they cannot agree on the morality it wants. 

This is where this question appears to be going.  You may show me otherwise.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1806
  • Darwins +362/-4
To have no concern about the well-being of others is immoral.

Why?

So, per this response by MM, to have no concern for the well being of others is moral?    I'm figuring on the usual BS that no one can have morals without MM's version of his god.

Would you like to answer the question, rather than mocking it?

OAA, AKA 'Karma Police', why is it such a dumb question? Do you have an answer?

One might argue that while OAA's or velkyn's posting history is a source of frustration to some members, they chose to engage to a point where they feel they have explained their perspectives and answered a series of questions. They then prefer to move onto something else. They just may find that a more enjoyable experience. Perhaps they don't intend to change their posting habits. So, please have your say. Or not, as conversations that aren't reciprocal are hardly satisfying or even successful for long.

Or one might say that humans have evolved with a natural instinct called "empathy." To one who is familiar with this instinct, knowing when and why it would be applied is as basic to the human condition as understanding when and why one might sleep or eat. One who is not familiar with this instinct, or who lacks this instinct naturally, might consider learning a little simple biology first before jumping into more complicated topics.

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
To have no concern about the well-being of others is immoral.

Why?

So, per this response by MM, to have no concern for the well being of others is moral?    I'm figuring on the usual BS that no one can have morals without MM's version of his god.

Would you like to answer the question, rather than mocking it?

I'm not mocking it, though it does deserve to be mocked.  By your question, it seems that you want to claim that having no concern for others is moral, if you have to ask why it is not moral.   Christians claim that there is no morality except by their god.  However, they cannot agree on the morality it wants. 

This is where this question appears to be going.  You may show me otherwise.

My question doesn't mean I consider lack of concern for others to be moral. It means I am interested to know why someone other than me might consider lack of concern for others to be immoral.

Interesting that you still haven't provided a response to that. Are you prepared to?

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
To have no concern about the well-being of others is immoral.

Why?

So, per this response by MM, to have no concern for the well being of others is moral?    I'm figuring on the usual BS that no one can have morals without MM's version of his god.

Would you like to answer the question, rather than mocking it?

OAA, AKA 'Karma Police', why is it such a dumb question? Do you have an answer?

One might argue that while OAA's or velkyn's posting history is a source of frustration to some members, they chose to engage to a point where they feel they have explained their perspectives and answered a series of questions. They then prefer to move onto something else. They just may find that a more enjoyable experience. Perhaps they don't intend to change their posting habits. So, please have your say. Or not, as conversations that aren't reciprocal are hardly satisfying or even successful for long.

That's quite amusing.


Or one might say that humans have evolved with a natural instinct called "empathy." To one who is familiar with this instinct, knowing when and why it would be applied is as basic to the human condition as understanding when and why one might sleep or eat. One who is not familiar with this instinct, or who lacks this instinct naturally, might consider learning a little simple biology first before jumping into more complicated topics.

Oh, OK. So how you treat others has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with an instinct. And when someone treats someone else badly, they are guilty merely of lacking something biological, and therefore cannot be blamed. Is that correct?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18407
  • Darwins +449/-26
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
To have no concern about the well-being of others is immoral.

Why?

So, per this response by MM, to have no concern for the well being of others is moral?    I'm figuring on the usual BS that no one can have morals without MM's version of his god.

Would you like to answer the question, rather than mocking it?

I'm not mocking it, though it does deserve to be mocked.  By your question, it seems that you want to claim that having no concern for others is moral, if you have to ask why it is not moral.   Christians claim that there is no morality except by their god.  However, they cannot agree on the morality it wants. 

This is where this question appears to be going.  You may show me otherwise.

My question doesn't mean I consider lack of concern for others to be moral. It means I am interested to know why someone other than me might consider lack of concern for others to be immoral.

Interesting that you still haven't provided a response to that. Are you prepared to?

Interesting that this is nothing more than the attempts by theists to claim that no one but them have morals.  In that I have empathy, I have concern for that which is like me and that I would want someone to have concern for me.   Being a selfish bastard helps no one, and morality is the shared idea of what is good and evil, and its entirely subjective though most people have the same ideas, no god needed.   Pretty much no one but sociopaths and psychopaths have no concern for anyone but themselves. 

and wow,  the same old ignorant BS from MM again, trying to claim that since something might be just biological, then no one can be held accountable.  Hmmm, considering that your god made people to be as it wanted, per Romans 9, then it can't hold anyone accountable.  But per your myths, it does.  How does that work in that case?

quite the hypocrite with the karma, aren' t you, MM? 
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 07:23:56 PM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
To have no concern about the well-being of others is immoral.

Why?

So, per this response by MM, to have no concern for the well being of others is moral?    I'm figuring on the usual BS that no one can have morals without MM's version of his god.

Would you like to answer the question, rather than mocking it?

I'm not mocking it, though it does deserve to be mocked.  By your question, it seems that you want to claim that having no concern for others is moral, if you have to ask why it is not moral.   Christians claim that there is no morality except by their god.  However, they cannot agree on the morality it wants. 

This is where this question appears to be going.  You may show me otherwise.

My question doesn't mean I consider lack of concern for others to be moral. It means I am interested to know why someone other than me might consider lack of concern for others to be immoral.

Interesting that you still haven't provided a response to that. Are you prepared to?

Interesting that this is nothing more than the attempts by theists to claim that no one but them have morals.  In that I have empathy, I have concern for that which is like me and that I would want someone to have concern for me.   Being a selfish bastard helps no one, and morality is the shared idea of what is good and evil, and its entirely subjective though most people have the same ideas, no god needed.   Pretty much no one but sociopaths and psychopaths have no concern for anyone but themselves.

Do you agree with Albeto that empathy is purely a biological trait, over which one has no control? If so, why would not having that biological trait make you a 'selfish bastard', or a 'sociopath and psychopath'? Wouldn't it just make you biologically different?

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30

and wow,  the same old ignorant BS from MM again, trying to claim that since something might be just biological, then no one can be held accountable.

Please clarify your position. Are you saying that people SHOULD be held accountable for being different biologically?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18407
  • Darwins +449/-26
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
a completely expected event in the Trump failure with immigration

 https://twitter.com/RepKClark/status/1017144425057849344
Katherine Clark
?
Verified account
 
@RepKClark
 4h
4 hours ago
 
 
More
As a requirement prior to returning their children, two mothers who fled domestic violence and relocated to my district in #MA were asked whether they were Christian and attended church. This must stop.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18407
  • Darwins +449/-26
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"

and wow,  the same old ignorant BS from MM again, trying to claim that since something might be just biological, then no one can be held accountable.

Please clarify your position. Are you saying that people SHOULD be held accountable for being different biologically?

wow, great to see you arguing from biology, MM.  It seems rather strange that a creationist would take this tact if he didn't believe in it. 

Yes, people should be held accountable because we aren't only led by instinct.  We have intellect.  I wouldn't blame a dog for biting me, but I would a human.  Empathy is a purely biological trait,  we have no magic supernatural parts.  You've failed again, MM. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30

 
More
As a requirement prior to returning their children, two mothers who fled domestic violence and relocated to my district in #MA were asked whether they were Christian and attended church. This must stop.

Source? If this can verified, I will 100% share your outrage.

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30


Yes, people should be held accountable because we aren't only led by instinct.  We have intellect.

What does intellect have to do with it?


 I wouldn't blame a dog for biting me, but I would a human.  Empathy is a purely biological trait,  we have no magic supernatural parts.  You've failed again, MM.

I think you're really struggling with this line of questioning. You say on the one hand that empathy is purely biological, but you then say it is right that those without empathy should be blamed for it. It seems like an entirely unreasonable and contradictory POV. And bringing up 'intelligence' doesn't bring much clarity, either. All that does is say people should also be punished for having a lower intelligence.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1806
  • Darwins +362/-4
That's quite amusing.

You think? Have you rethought your philosophy regarding participation here?

Quote
Oh, OK. So how you treat others has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with an instinct. And when someone treats someone else badly, they are guilty merely of lacking something biological, and therefore cannot be blamed. Is that correct?

No.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 08:10:32 PM by albeto »

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1806
  • Darwins +362/-4
Do you agree with Albeto that empathy is purely a biological trait, over which one has no control? If so, why would not having that biological trait make you a 'selfish bastard', or a 'sociopath and psychopath'? Wouldn't it just make you biologically different?

Nope. Not what albeto said at all. This is a ridiculous bastardization of what I said.

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
Oh, OK. So how you treat others has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with an instinct. And when someone treats someone else badly, they are guilty merely of lacking something biological, and therefore cannot be blamed. Is that correct?

No.

'No' to which part of my post? And if 'no', could you clarify your position?

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
Do you agree with Albeto that empathy is purely a biological trait, over which one has no control? If so, why would not having that biological trait make you a 'selfish bastard', or a 'sociopath and psychopath'? Wouldn't it just make you biologically different?

Nope. Not what albeto said at all. This is a ridiculous bastardization of what I said.

So please clarify your position.

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
That's quite amusing.

You think? Have you rethought your philosophy regarding participation here?


Not at all. I'll always move on to a different thread at a certain point -  a point of my choosing.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1806
  • Darwins +362/-4
So please clarify your position.

Here's the problem I have with your attempted Socratic method, Miles. Ostensibly you're engaging in what is meant too look like a free-flow conversation that gently but ultimately steers us towards the conclusion you already assume to be the most accurate one. The problem is either in your reading comprehension, or your inflexibility with regard to modifying your beliefs as new information is gained, or perhaps the comprehension of this new information. In any case, it's an exercise in futility. If your summary of my post is your genuine understanding of what I said, then there's no point in clarifying anything because there's no expectation of comprehending the clarification.