It called politicizing an issue. Educate yourself and google it or something.

This was the case right up until Trump started running, and anti-Trumpism became the governing ideology. So much for liberal sensibilities. — NOS4A2

I can see now that I gave you too much credit for understanding liberal sensibilities. A theory offered in the article you linked to suggests that Trump’s push for a wall (not a fence which feels more neighborly) sensitized Americans to the plight of immigrants. A wall feels harsh compared to a fence, etc.

If Trump actually cared about a wall, actually believed in it, he would have proposed it differently. It seems clear that he could careless and merely politicized the issue to help capture the support of a particular segment of the population.

You’re an idealist, in other words.

Just a wild guess but so far your reasoning appears to be something like: there are mysteries no one can answer and therefore we should all be agnostic. Is that right? — praxis

@3017amen Tick tock

A 30ft metal wall is a minor obstacle? What a dangerous lie. Tell that to the woman who impaled herself n the same wall. Tell that to the man who broke both legs climbing the 30 ft fence in California, or the severed limbs in Arizona. Those kinds of lies will get people hurt, or worse. — NOS4A2

As you are probably aware (and unaffected by due to your conditioning) illegal immigration across the Southern border has been steadily declining for decades, and has been comprised mainly of single men looking for work. This is not the border “crisis.” The crisis is due to central American asylum-seeking, which has increased approximately 900% since 2012. It's fair to say that these asylum-seekers have a lot invested in their journey and they're not going to arrive at an 18' fence (Trump can only take credit for 11 miles of actual new fence currently being constructed and it's 18 feet tall) and say "Ay caramba!" and then turn around and hightail it back to where they came from. The rest of the fence varies in height from 18 to 26 feet, by the way.



Good instinct to hit on liberal sensibilities but lousy execution. Scaling a fence must be a relatively minor potential pitfall that asylum-seekers face on their journey. At least it shows that you know how to play the game.

First of all I'm not a 'theist'. However I posit that a theist, atheist, et.al . is unable to adequately explain the nature of those kinds of things.

My guess is that it's similar to the ineffable feelings of love. And maybe philosophically one could argue that love is a mottled color of subjective and objective truth.

How would one capture the phenomena of Love in words? — 3017amen

I’m not inclined to bother with these questions because you haven’t shown how it would lead anywhere.

Just a wild guess but so far your reasoning appears to be something like: there are mysteries no one can answer and therefore we should all be agnostic. Is that right?

If that’s the case then the topic title is somewhat misleading.

it has something to do with Atheists lack of ability to explain them adequately
— 3017amen

Alright, [randomly chooses one of your questions] how does a theist explain the feeling of the color red? — praxis

@3017amen Tick tock tick tock

You’re deliberately avoiding the overriding point, and thereby inadvertently indicating it’s validity, which is that Trump followers such as yourself have been conditioned in such a way that they comfortably hold multiple contradictory beliefs. For instance, you know that if someone wants to cross a border, a fence will be a minor obstacle, and you just acknowledged that there are better solutions. Negotiations resulted in a 65% decrease within only a handful of months, for instance. It’s not so much that you favor the irrational choice, it’s that you’ve been conditioned to do it with such ease.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. No mention of efficacy in the link you provide because, for a follower like yourself, that’s not the important part. Solidarity and fitting in is primary. That’s how you’ve been conditioned to be.

it has something to do with Atheists lack of ability to explain them adequately — 3017amen

Alright, [randomly chooses one of your questions] how does a theist explain the feeling of the color red?

I believe in walls and fences for the same reason we have walls and fences around our houses. This is something I agree with Trump on. Walls work. — NOS4A2

White picket fences primarily function to demark property lines. They can also be decorative. If someone wants to cross them they can easily do that. If a neighborhood is concerned with burglaries, for example, a far more effective and practical solution would be a neighborhood watch program. It would also be far far less expensive than everyone in the neighborhood building a mote, complete with snakes and crocodiles :razz: , around their homes.

I kid with the last part, but seriously, if a con artist prayed on homeowners' insecurities and managed to sell an entire neighborhood on expensive security systems that were less effective than managing the problem through other means, and the homeowners denied their gullibility with the evidence staring them in the face, what does that say about these homeowners? It says they lack independent agency.

I have some disagreements with your reiterations. They're irrelevant, however, lacking a larger point. Am I correct in a assuming it has something to do with theism? If so, please explain the relation.

Assuming these questions are meant to somehow support theism, you should probably share that reasoning first.

Maybe they don’t. But like I said, my immigration views are my own. — NOS4A2

In what sense are they your own? Like all of us your knowledge, views and opinions, ideology, morality, values, and even emotions are dependent on others. Did you spontaneously pop into existence? No, you developed within a human culture. The most relevant question is the degree to which you've developed independent agency. That you can't see a difference between your views and your fellow Trump followers views, while simultaneously claiming that your views are your own, and being so apparently comfortable with this juxtaposition, indicates a doublethink that is indicative of group conformity and not a sign of independents. Nothing wrong with group conformity in itself, of course, but in some instances submitting to group pressure isn’t always in the best interest of the group.

A recent example of conflicting interests, and apparent comfort with the resulting inner contention, involves how Trump's followers process the two main approaches the Trump administration has taken on the Southern border crisis. In the last government shutdown, Trump claimed that the only solution to the crisis was his wall and circumvented Congress by declaring a national emergency. This was unprecedented in that none of the 58 previous emergency declarations made by U.S. presidents involved circumventing Congress to spend money it had expressly refused to authorize or allocate.

A Trump follower like yourself must realize this precedent could have serious consequences, such as a future Democratic administration circumventing Congress in this fashion to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on what they may generally regard as *socialistic* solutions to national "emergencies."

The other approach the Trump administration has taken on the border crisis is to negotiate with Mexico and other Latin American countries. According to the acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, more than 52,000 migrants were taken into custody in the month of September, an 18% decline from August. It represents a 65% decline from the peak in May when more than 144,000 migrants were detained at ports of entry or in between.

"This administration's strategies have brought about results, the Commissioner told reporters in a White House briefing. "Dramatic results."

"Dramatic results" without a border wall. But a border wall was supposed to be the only solution. The wall funding is not only costly in taxpayer dollars, it's also costly in the manner of its seizure, essentially giving more power to the executive branch and less liberty to citizens. How does a Trump follower like yourself feel about this?

Does it clarify?

The "atheist" answer just means "no", you don't think anything that counts as a god exists, without any implications about anything else — Pfhorrest

Doesn’t this disqualify option 3.

It may not be ‘theism’ per se, but in my experience, if it’s *not* materialism, then it’s going to sound awfully like it. — Wayfarer

Your problem, and mine as well, is that our experience is so dualistic. Idealism doesn’t necessarily sound a lot like theism to me though. The materialism vs idealism dichotomy also doesn’t seem necessary.

I’d like to hear how theism could be a trivial part of a person’s philosophy.

If you’re not sure how your views on immigration may diverge from the rest of Trumps followers, or his authority, then maybe they don’t. I could bring up specific issues surrounding immigration if that saves you time and effort. We’ve already touched on the Trump administration zero tolerance policy, for instance.

How do they diverge? assuming that you are game.

On too many occasions over the last several weeks I’ve found myself waiting to hear out an argument from you that never materializes.

Anyway, if you’re game I’m curious about your views on immigration. Do you just go along with the Trump party line or do you have any independent views that may at all diverge?

it doesn't seem like atheism has the answers...( to the deep questions of existence). — 3017amen

Have you asked? What are the questions?

Full truth: you have a health sense of humor.

Do you have an example of a half-lie ? — 3017amen

You’re doing halfway well in this topic.

The object isn't to appease, but to not be confrontational in the first place. — Hanover

Alright, then let me put it a different way, why weren’t you non-confrontational? And who said anything about appeasement?

I’m not saying it’s easy to ‘reach across the aisle’, far from it. I will say that actually trying to do it is far more productive than crying foul when others don’t try.

I'm just saying I know you and I don't agree and doubtfully ever will, so if that's all you're letting me know, we probably could have figured that out before we started talking. — Hanover

You're the one who started this. If your intention for doing so had to do with the "problem pointed out by the OP," I fail to see it. Despite my responses, which were intentionally confrontational, you could've tried to find common ground, appealed to liberal values, or whatever. You did not.

If they're both valid then you can explain how the former is not preferable.

For the same reason we do not throw children in jail with their parents. It is unjust. — NOS4A2

In the situation we're discussing the choice is between the two. As far as I know, there's no option to not hold the child.

15% of “families” engage in child trafficking is only concerning? Do your sentiments not extend to innocent children? — NOS4A2

I am honestly not frightened by the information. I'm a bad Libtard. :sad:

You can't win when I have the moral high ground. Just admit it was a mistake and let's leave it at that.
— praxis

This is the very problem pointed out by the OP. It's this lecturing, self certainty that makes you think you can end the conversation by just announcing yourself right. — Hanover

These are serious issues and I shouldn't fool around as I have.

I’m trying not to butt in, but ethically it’s double edged sword. Some believe throwing children in jail with their parents or potential human traffickers is obscene, while others believe it is awful to separate them. Both are valid. — NOS4A2

If they're both valid then you can explain how the former is not preferable.

According to ICE, their new DNA testing program has given us frightening results: — NOS4A2

That 15% fail a test with dubious credibility is concerning but not "frightening."

Do half-truth's exist? — 3017amen

Of course, as do half-lies.

My openness to other responses to the moral violation of the parents and my reference to the lofty proposition of justice is based upon my infinite rationality and inherent gentle disposition. — Hanover

Lovely.

being unjust not because a negative consequence was undeserving — Hanover

The aspect that I'm trying to introduce you to is that the children are innocent. The children are undeserving, are they not?

it seemed an unsustainable policy based upon democratic sentiment — Hanover

Conservative sentiments don't extend to innocent children?

You can't win when I have the moral high ground. Just admit it was a mistake and let's leave it at that.

we're just spinning this in the way that makes the other look as absurd as possible, which I think was the lament of the OP — Hanover

I fully realized that while choosing how to approach your question. I chose the approach that I felt like taking. I have confidence in your rationality, also.

Yeah, I doubt it. I'm not discounting that the separation isn't a happy time for the child, but... — Hanover

Rationalizing.

Let me ask you, was it right to stop this policy or should it be continued?

Thoughts? — 3017amen

3) You don't know.

I'm pretty sure when discussing this with ArguingWAristotleTiff last year that Obama separated kids from the people they were travelling with because they couldn't establish whether they were their parents or not. Mostly done to avoid human trafficking. — Benkei

How does this differ from the Trump administration policy? I can see how kids would arrive with adults, but I don't see how it would have been any more difficult to establish actual families then than it is now.

Let’s assume that I’m a complete asshole and in fact welcome the excuse to rid myself of the sniveling rug rats. Is it just about my morality?

It’s funny that the party known for championing children, when they’re on the right side of a vagina, can be so willing to defend the abandonment of that concern after they’ve crossed that barrier. Separating a child from their parents in this manner is undoubtedly traumatic and has caused incalculable mental anguish. But I get it, ideology/morality can be expressed in many counterintuitive ways. The important thing is that the mistake was identified and corrected.

What I'm trying to explain is that the 'God' that atheism says doesn't exist, really doesn't exist, but that this doesn't validate atheism. Mainly it’s a straw god argument with which Internet forums abound. — Wayfarer

Everything that exists can be understood as merely conceptual, so this point seems extremely weak. Do unicorns exist? They certainly exist conceptually. We can easily see how the conceptual components of a unicorn have been synthesized to form the concept. It’s much harder to determine the reason why unicorns exist (if only conceptually), or rather to determine the role of what’s symbolized plays in society. Because the concept is so widespread I think it’s fair to say that it’s useful in some way. Significantly, if it was not useful it would not exist.

Atheism can offer valid reasons for why God exists, in other words.

Separating thousands of children from their parents is not a fine point, my unsympathetic friend.
— praxis

Your argument, as I understand it, is that when Obama separated and caged kids, he was doing it for Just and Wise reasons; whereas when Trump does it, he's Adolf Hitler running concentration camps. — fishfry

No, and I haven’t made an argument. I will simply repost what I posted before:

Politifact [gotta love politifact!] claims:

Obama and Biden in 2014 saw an influx of children arriving at the border without a parent or guardian, and reporting from 2014 by the Arizona Republic referred to a chain-link enclosure holding children as cages.

Trump’s administration implemented a policy that led to the separation of thousands of children from their parents. Obama did not have that policy.

Can you see the part I underlined, fishfry? You can’t separate a child from their parent if no parent is present. I don’t know if any of this is true but politifact is pretty reliable from what I understand. Again, if you can show public records that help to substantiate your version of these events please do so.

’what exists' is contingent, whereas 'the source of what exists' is necessary. — Wayfarer

I think this is the other way around. ‘What exists’ is necessarily dependent on everything else and necessarily transitory in nature. ‘The source of what exists’ is contingent upon whatever need one is trying to fulfill, such as the need for meaning.

You did ignore most of my post just to sneer at a percieved contradiction, whatever the reason is... — Judaka

The reason is, like this post of yours that I respond to now, I found it largely incoherent. Let’s say that’s my failing and end as friends.

My point is pretty redundant if you think racism and biogtry are insignificantly different. — Judaka

I don’t think bigotry and racism are synonymous. The latter is a specific form of bigotry. If I’m missing some subtly or entire concept here I hope someone will point it out.

any simplistic, overarching characterisations will draw my criticism. — Judaka

I just had to say how charming this is in relation to the paragraph that preceded it.

Obama's immigration guy, admitted a few months ago to reporters that Obama built the cages. — fishfry

That’s not disputed.

But you're picking at the margins, the fine points...

Separating thousands of children from their parents is not a fine point, my unsympathetic friend.

On the larger point of Dem complicity in the ongoing 30-year program of militarizing the border and creating the current humanitarian disaster, you're conspicuously silent.

I explicitly stated that I wanted to clarify one point. This larger point is far beyond the specific issue we’ve addressed. Without being sufficiently informed on such matters I can easily acknowledge ‘Dem’ involvement in South
American affairs spanning decades, if that makes you feel better for some reason.

I think that racism has lost all meaning to some people, I wonder what people would think a world where only a single race existed. There'd be no borders, nobody would be worried about illegal immigration, nobody would discriminate against other cultures, nobody would discriminate against poorer and less educated nations.

Forgetting that,... — Judaka

Good, I have no idea what your point is there. Bigotry would be alive and well in a world with only one race, given sufficient ignorance. You just couldn't call it racism.

what I said still stands true, a desire for strict border control is not indicative of a racist mentality. — Judaka

100% agree. Did I indicate otherwise?

I don't think that what you've posted actually demonstrates racism. — Judaka

Did you watch the video of Trump poetically suggesting to his devout followers that people crossing the border from Mexico are inherently evil? He got a fucking standing ovation for that.

It certainly demonstrates an extremely prejudiced view towards illegal immigrants but is it race — Judaka

What does your intuition honestly tell you?

leftists certainly can't help themselves. Trump supporters are racist, the desire to control borders is indicative of racism, a simplistic analysis that is convienient for them. — Judaka

My personal belief is that there can be an element of racism in right-wing populism because the group experiencing a loss of status can resent their status dropping below that of minorities or the perceived underclass, and this anxiety can be harnessed by an unscrupulous leader. Trump and his followers are notoriously against affirmative action, for instance. I don’t think this would be so concerning unless you were anxious about your own status.

The bigoty he tries to inspire around the border issue is more incidental, in my opinion.