On top of that, he's an outright immoral character who lied and cheated on his wife, and then claimed to Congress that he ALWAYS said the truth all the while admitting to hurting his wife. Really, a despicable man, and I think he should be in jail. — Agustino

You may very well be the least self-aware person I know.

Nobody tells John Locke what he can't do

When I saw that someone with a username of JohnLocke, I knew I was in for a treat. Did not disappoint.

In an interview with the British tabloid The Sun published Thursday, Trump said that it is a "shame" that European leaders had allowed so many migrants to enter their countries' borders.

"Allowing the immigration to take place in Europe is a shame," the U.S. president told the tabloid

"I think it changed the fabric of Europe and, unless you act very quickly, it’s never going to be what it was and I don’t mean that in a positive way," he continued.

"I think you are losing your culture," he told the tabloid. "Look around. You go through certain areas that didn’t exist ten or 15 years ago."

As if it weren't obvious before, Trump doesn't merely loathe illegal immigration, but non-white/non-European immigrants tout court, while using white nationalist language.

Hannity himself has said he's "not a journalist", but a talk show host, so why pay him any attention?

How could I even go about persuading Maw about it? — Agustino

Maybe substantiate your claims with corroborative evidence from reputable sources, along with iron-tight logic, rather than, for example, "I base my statements about what I observe in my own soul" as you did here.

Merrick Garland

Ah, well you didn't say "I fear they are not" in your original post, but that does help clarify it.

any parallels to 1930’s Germany (avoiding the N-word label here) are most premature and completely unwarranted. — 0 thru 9

The use of your Niemoller poem contradicts this statement.

Now, how can someone from Guatemala present themselves claiming political asylum at the USA border? Further more, how can the USA deny asylum and return them to? Mexico? Mexico is the border in which they presented themselves but returning them to Mexico is not returning them home. How are these folks moving through Mexico to the USA without being 'caught'? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

To be honest Tiff, the answers to some of these questions are answered in some of the articles I've shared. "How can someone from Guatemala present themselves claiming political asylum?" You submit your claim at a designated point of entry and US officials determine if you have credible fear of returning to your home country. If you are denied asylum, they put you on a plane back to your home country, and this includes Guatemala or any country that you originated from.

Yeah the media made Trump fuck a porn star while his wife was pregnant with his child, which occurred slightly over 10 years ago, when Trump was "not old" I guess. Gotcha.

And you don't think this "cultivated" immoral traits and characteristics that would adversely affect his Presidency?

Oh yeah I totally misread that, but in my defense I've only had a few sips of coffee this morning

I have no problem being disliked by stupid people, although I'm quite certain that Tiff does like me.

I wonder how it is that Agustino thinks casual sex is immoral, and further, that it "cultivates selfishness", "treats persons as objects", and "damages loyalty and devotion", and yet shows devoted admiration towards Donald Trump, who not only engaged in casual sex many many many times, but cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star.

Maw, your remark about me is amazing considering you were the one that moved me on this issue. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Fair enough, but I only moved you because an actual Holocaust survivor acknowledged parallels to family separation policy and detainment in concentration camps, to the pre-genocidal era of Nazism. Not every Holocaust survivor agrees with this parallel, by the way, I recently watched a video in which a Holocaust survivor denounced such analogies, but I think he is very mistaken.

The point I was making with the Sisyphean task remark, is that you continue to bring up questions or remarks that were answered or explained by articles, or research that I and others have provided across this thread. For example, you ask why there wasn't outrage towards Central American parents who send their children across the border alone (i.e. unaccompanied minors), but I directly shared with you an article about the dire situation in these areas, whether its extreme poverty, or ubiquitous gang violence, or, most likely, a combination. If your son was approached by gangs, or threatened by vicious gangs, or if your daughter was threatened with rape or murder, the logical (though nevertheless difficult) decision is to send them away, because anything would be better than death. That's why there is no "outrage". These parents aren't sending there children away because they want them to abuse our public resources or some nonsense, or come to America just to join MS-13. They are sending them away to escape certain violence and poverty, and to try and find a better life, as any parent is wont to do. The fact that this has been brought up several times but you can't seem to absorb it and learn from it, demonstrates that a lot of what I and others say are falling on deaf ears. Hence the Sisyphean task.

And come on Tiff, you just shared a Breitbart article ffs....

This story is something straight out of Kafka.

Thank you @InternetStranger for demonstrating to us what many moral philosophers call, "being a dick".

Moral realism is of course entirely justified, however it is impossible because too many people are too stupid — Marcus de Brun

It's not about (im)possibility. We always already find ourselves in a 'moral world' with others, and so the urgent question is: how do we act and engage with others, and how does that affect ourselves?

Insofar as human nature is real, insofar as human well-being is real, and insofar as human suffering is real (often in gratuitous forms), then it seems inescapable that moral realism is justified.

Personally, I think engaging with Tiff on immigration is nothing more than a Sisyphean task.

I think you may prefer The Real and Its Double

The article only mentions that it's "not uncommon". I don't think it's semantically reasonable to exchange "not uncommon" with "many". I guess my point is that the majority of adults who are with children are biological parents, so this hysteria over human traffickers is largely overblown. And while this is undeniably a concern and should be thwarted, it shouldn't be used as a clarion call to justify separations, abuse, etc.

Many are not their parents — ArguingWAristotleTiff

"Many"?

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has Alzheimer's or something.

the context doesn't make it any less stupid

When I first saw this quote being shared around Facebook, I thought it was just a parody. I can't believe he actually said this....

Looks like the only thing that emerged from Trump's meeting with Kim Jong Un is that a higher percentage of Republicans have a more favorable view of a murderous despot than they do Nancy Pelosi.

Either that or a troll. Regardless, someone just ban him. He hasn't contributed in the slightest and is just wasting everyone's time with his crap.

This dude is a straight up moron, that's it.

Still unsure what the components of 'Western Civilization' are, and if it is distinct from the equally confused concept of 'White Civilization'.

That's hilarious coming from a goober who claimed that the Nazi's did not bomb Buckingham Palace due to some idiosyncratic conspiracy theory, and who then adjusted his argument several times only to eventually fall silent after being proven wrong multiple times.

Maybe do a better job of comprehending what members in this forum are saying, especially when they are directly replying to what you write?

In what way is he or she a "minority member" of this forum anymore than I am based on my views? — raza

Hanover is referencing what you said here: "Of course a so-called 'member' of a 'minority' group should not be protected from merely feeling uncomfortable about someone else's words," you goober.

Absolutely astonishing how fucking stupid Jordan Peterson is in this video. When asked why academics gravitate towards Socialism, Peterson responds that, "they don't get paid enough and they are resentful... adjunct professors don't have tenure, they get paid abysmally, they live in their damn cars, they teach four courses, they have no power, they make $16K - 21K annually...that's a place where plenty of resentment can be generated."

Resentment? That's his interpretation? Fucking really?

Ahhhhh nooooo I just found out Clement Rosset died earlier this year

Love the only two books of his that were translated to English: The Real and Its Double and Joyful Cruelty

No, I've never had sex outside of committed relationships. Nor did my partners for that matter, but then it's only natural that I am attracted to such people given my own views. — Agustino

So you're not offering any justification for this view of yours. Either by scientific data or personal experience. Not at all surprising given your puritan view of women.

Zed's dead baby

Have you never had casual sex Agustino?

Treats the other person as an object (or as a means to an end), and does not accord them the value they deserve (nor you the value you deserve) — Agustino

It cultivates and promotes feelings of lust and selfishness since the only possible motivation to have casual sex is egoism (ie, your own pleasure). — Agustino

Casual sex does not preclude affording your partner the sexual attention they deserve or need. Having casual sex does not necessarily mean exclusively focusing on your own sexual needs at the expense of your partner's. That's simply a difference between good sex and bad sex. A citation is also required here.

Is damaging towards your (and your partner's) possibility for emotional bonding (https://www.thetrumpet.com/7750-the-emotional-corrosion-of-casual-sex) — Agustino

You'll have to do better than citing a random religious magazine published by the Philadelphia Church of God.

The brain gets used to having multiple partners, and then a relationship is no longer as special - you become less capable of a serious relationship. — Agustino

This requires a citation. The average person has around 11-20 unique sexual partners in his or her lifetime (if memory serves), and I sincerely doubt that after merely 20 or so partners, the brain is so radically transformed and immutable so that you can't form a special sexual relationship with anybody.

It damages the loyalty and devotion that could otherwise exist between the partners through sexual bonding. — Agustino

Not everyone desires, or needs "loyalty and devotion" with a random sexual partner (in fact, it goes without saying that most people don't). And given that this doesn't exclude the ability to form "loyalty and devotion" with another sexual partner, should one wish it, I don't see an issue.

yes casual sex is always immoral. — Agustino

How?

Sex should be restricted to a committed relationship, where the end goal (of the relationship, not of the sex necessarily) is having a family and children - or at the VERY least intimacy between the two lovers. — Agustino

Why?