Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - junker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 168  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:50:40 PM »
I would say that's largely because of people like Trump pushing a false definition.
I absolutely agree.

You can't make this not about Trump no matter how you try.
I really don't understand what you mean here. I am doing nothing of the sort. I was saying a discussion/debate about socialism would be off-topic. Discussing what Trump says about socialism or who he thinks are socialists obviously isn't off-topic. But I am not overly interested in discussing how Trump is clueless about yet another topic.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:35:06 PM »
You say that as if this line of argument has nothing to do with Trump, even though he's the one most vocally crying that the progressives are trying to make this country socialist.   ::)

I meant an actual thread regarding socialism. If you want to talk about how Trump doesn't understand socialism and uses the term incorrectly, then sure. I was suggesting a thread to discuss and debate what socialism actually is based on definitions. It's obvious from this thread that even most of the anti-Trump folks don't understand what socialism is.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:20:44 PM »
Someone needs to get the word out!

I think anyone who understands the definition of words already knows!

Since it is clear you have no interest in discussing the topic, let me suggest the thread return to pointing out how awful Trump is. If you change your mind, let's take it to another thread like I suggested previously.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:13:20 PM »
Then the argument can't be made that (say) Medicare For All is inherently socialist either. Nice that that's cleared up.

Correct.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 09:47:55 PM »
They most certainly are. Any system that involves redistribution of wealth is inherently socialist, because that's what socialism is.

Sigh... No, it isn't (by the literal definition). But this really isn't the thread for that topic.

edit: I wouldn't mind a dedicated topic on socialism. But redistribution of wealth occurs in most every economic system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_income_and_wealth#Role_in_economic_systems) and is in no way exclusive to socialism. If you want to go deeper into this, then let's fire up a new thread.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 18, 2019, 08:34:47 PM »
Quote
1 main point of all 4 women:
1) AOC - socialist whack job who auditioned for the part...
Social security is socialist.  Public schools are socialist.  Ya know, fyi.

To be fair, none of those things or people are inherently socialist. Don't fall for the trap from republican brainlets who think socialism is the government doing stuff. If it doesn't involve advocating for the workers to control the means of production, it plainly is not socialism.

7
Technology & Information / Re: Need a pron machine
« on: July 18, 2019, 01:14:36 PM »
I got an adhesive sliding plastic door thingy from Linux Academy whilst at AWS Re:Invent a couple years back.

I wish I had gotten more since I have a few laptops.

8
Technology & Information / Re: Need a pron machine
« on: July 17, 2019, 02:25:40 AM »

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2019, 03:12:53 PM »
Serious expansion of court systems is required so that asylum cases can be processed in a matter of days or weeks instead of the current waiting time of several months or even years.
I believe this is the best solution as well.


If that is not possible, then the asylum process must be abandoned entirely. It is highly subjective and moralistic system which is a decadence that we may soon no longer be able to afford.
If a migrant crisis as a result of climate change unfolds, then I agree asylum may need to be suspended or abandoned while we figure our own problems out. In the meantime, I think the US does have a responsibility to the world to keep the process going and improve upon it. My position on this stems from US involvement in displacing not a small number of people from overthrowing governments, facilitating regime changes, etc. A fair number of these displaced people end up knocking on the US's (or other Western nations) door claiming asylum. Although if it weren't that, I still think we would have some responsibility being the leaders of the free world and all. But that is highly subjective.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2019, 02:40:11 AM »
I would like to add that I am indeed against the core idea of these concentration camps on the border. Instead, all individuals should be turned back immediately at the border. The border must be reinforced to prevent any and all unauthorized entry. With the ongoing notion of climate change, the migrations are only going to get worse.

Seems we could have saved a page of nonsensical back and forth had you just presented this from the start. I think this is a reasonable position to take. Although I'd ask what should happen with the asylum process in this case.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2019, 02:38:21 AM »
I still don't see the evidence for what you said on that page. You'll need to be more specific.
Actually, I won't need to be more specific. The evidence is there, you choosing to not read it falls squarely on you. If you want to refute the evidence, cool, but pretending you can't find it just makes it even more apparent that you are being disingenuous. If you don't want to continue this topic that you specifically brought up, then just say so. It is clear you aren't prepared or willing to discuss it.

Again, there's no need to be defensive. All that I ask is that you source your claims, which, coincidentally, you're incapable of doing.
Not defensive at all. I am merely suggestion that you partake in a discussion instead of troll and deflect and pretend like you don't even know who is being discussed. I have already stated my position, which is something you refuse to do up to this point. This makes it abundantly clear that you have no interest in discussion, especially when paired with your feigning ignorance about what is even being discussed.

You'll have to source "treating immigrants like garbage".
Already done.


Further, finding some bad social media posts isn't a very strong indicator of evidence in regards to an entire organization.
Good thing no one said the entire organization, then.

Recently, a top Democrat donor, Jeffrey Epstein, yet again has been indicted for being a pedophile. And yet, does that make the entire DNC pedophiles?
Probably, but I am not sure what this poor comparison of the DNC to an actual government authority like CBP is supposed to accomplish. Do you have an actual argument or position? Epstein is also chummy with Trump, a self-proclaimed womanizer, so I guess all Republicans are pedophiles too...


12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2019, 01:53:49 AM »
It is probably best to refocus the discussion.

The US is running a system of camps that bear a resemblance to internment camps or concentration camps that have been seen in the past. These camps are objectively approved of by the current Republican President and his administration.

CBP staff are treating immigrants like garbage and Republicans couldn't care less. It is just a shame that some of CBP's best and brightest decided to make their sociopathy public by making a Facebook group where they openly mocked the plight of immigrants being separated from their children (https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/cbp-employees-placed-on-administrative-duties-amid-offensive-social-media-posts).

Make no mistake though, Republicans share the same mindset as these fine folks that were placed on "administrative duties." The only lesson they will take away from this is that maybe they shouldn't be so stupid to think that a private FB group is actually private.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2019, 01:39:30 AM »
So your position now is that you don't actually know what is being discussed, very cool. You don't know the people being discussed or the context. Why on Earth would you continue to post if you are this clueless about an incredibly popular topic going on right now in the US?

Well I asked what is now a laundry list of questions you outright refuse to answer.

Are you actually aware of the immigration debate going on in the US? If not then just say so and we can start from the beginning. If you don't understand how immigration works I would be happy to hold your hand through it. Of course it is likely that you have no argument to make, and are now just feigning ignorance to cover for that. You have no evidence for whichever position you think you support.

Am I to start making assumptions about your opinion based on whatever happens to be running through the mainstream media at any given time? Which channel should I watch to acquire Junker's latest opinion feed?

Also, your very genuine interest about police can be addressed with the studies you'll find here: http://womenandpolicing.com
Go ahead and read through, and if you disagree then link to studies and evidence you have to support your position.

I don't understand your point here. You linked to an entire website. Would you like me to link you "wikipedia.com" whenever I make an argument about something? Am I to believe you even read that website yourself? You made a specific claim, I expect you to provide specific evidence of it.

I look forward to reviewing your arguments and the undoubtedly well-sourced evidence that supports those arguments. I'll be glad to be enlightened by you and have my position challenged.

I asked some simple questions about your opinions and the data behind them, there was never an argument here. That you feel there was an argument going on is certainly an interesting take on this discussion.

Another post without any substance. No argument, no position taken, no evidence.

You haven't asked a laundry list of things, and I haven't refused to answer anything, so I would appreciate if you wouldn't resort to outright lying. You have already said you don't even understand what is being discussed at this point, so it is probably best for you to bow out unless you decide to stop with the lazy, low-effort, low-energy posts. It is painfully obvious to everyone else that you have no argument and just want to deflect. I will continue to enable you to do that for as long as you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

Also, what was the point of the false equivalence about not understanding how to read a website? You do know what wikipedia is, right? If so, then you can easily see how nonsensical your failed comparison was. But, since you are incapable of navigating an incredibly simple website, I will go ahead and provide the link that would have taken you two seconds to get to had you actually taken a moment to read the website: http://womenandpolicing.com/violenceFS.asp - Please note that even if you click that link, you will have to expend at least some energy reading and thinking, and possibly clicking a few more links. Also, a helpful tip for you since you seem to be unable to infer context from any discussion so far, it would probably be helpful for you to read the homepage of that website as well. That way, you won't pretend to be unaware that we are discussing police officers.

If you want to reboot and have an actual discussion, that would be great. If you want to ramble in some sort of stream of consciousness like you have been doing, then I think CN may be a better forum for you to post in. If you have any direct questions to ask, I will answer them and provide my position to you. You should probably do the same if you are going to engage in a good-faith discussion. If all you want to do is shitpost and nitpick, then I suggest you stick to CN or AR.


14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 07, 2019, 10:57:47 PM »
So your position now is that you don't actually know what is being discussed, very cool. You don't know the people being discussed or the context. Why on Earth would you continue to post if you are this clueless about an incredibly popular topic going on right now in the US?

Are you actually aware of the immigration debate going on in the US? If not then just say so and we can start from the beginning. If you don't understand how immigration works I would be happy to hold your hand through it. Of course it is likely that you have no argument to make, and are now just feigning ignorance to cover for that. You have no evidence for whichever position you think you support.

Also, your very genuine interest about police can be addressed with the studies you'll find here: http://womenandpolicing.com
Go ahead and read through, and if you disagree then link to studies and evidence you have to support your position.

I look forward to reviewing your arguments and the undoubtedly well-sourced evidence that supports those arguments. I'll be glad to be enlightened by you and have my position challenged.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 07, 2019, 10:10:46 AM »
No... I'm suggesting that racist, angry, violent, abusive people ARE the best they can get.
Apologies, I was memeing.

16
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: July 07, 2019, 10:07:05 AM »
Are we gonna discuss shit or are we gonna snark back and forth.
Yes.

I'd rather only do one at a time if possible
That's what she said.


Okay, so I think Spider-Man did grow as a character this time around. He seems to suffer from PTSD and/or depression after being an Avenger (not to the extent Tony Stark did after New York, but it feels similar). He seems to be making it pretty clear that he wants to set some boundaries regarding being more of a friendly neighborhood spider. Obviously with Tony being dead he won't be able to do that in the context of these films. Even more so after what happens in the post-credit scene. So that will be an internal struggle for him.

Also, Ned grew as a character too. He went from hamfisted comic relief to hamfisted comic relief with a girlfriend. I think that shows real progress and growth. But yeah, the support structure Spidey has in the movie doesn't add much overall and we don't see their characters develop. I think that has happened a lot in Marvel movies since AoU where forced puns started becoming the norm instead of "real" dialogue.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM »
Do you have some specific evidence that human dignity is being sufficiently violated by these centers?
What does "sufficiently violated" mean? You already conceded this point in a previous post, but clearly don't think it is that big of a deal. If you want to lay out your threshold for what is and is not acceptable behavior, then maybe I can address your question.


You made the claim that child trafficking is not an excuse and that most people who come through the border are not being trafficked. No one else here made a contrary claim. You said:

I believe that out of the people being held in these camps, there are a lot more kids with parents or other family than there are with secret traffickers.
I made no such claim. I am somewhat astonished that you could quote me and continue on to make up a different version of what was said. It is literally in the quote.

And yet provided no evidence for that claim. Now that I ask for evidence, you tell me that I'm meant to prove it wrong?
Sorry, but you don't just get to put words in people's mouths and then ask for evidence for something you made up in your head. I wasn't the one who brought up trafficking as a valid reason to separate kids from their families. It is a common talking point that is provided with no evidence, but somehow I am expected to provide evidence for a counter-claim? Show me the evidence of these vast amounts of human trafficking occurring within these camps, and I will revise my position. Otherwise, it is a claim without evidence and can be dismissed as such.

If your argument is "well that's just a belief, not a claim" then surely you should wonder why you have extremely specific beliefs based on no evidence.
As opposed to the evidence of the majority of kids in these camps being subjects of trafficking? My belief is more that the administration has no issue with lying or making up claims. That is backed by plenty of evidence, which I would be happy to review with you if you would like. I suppose it could be wrong in this case, but until the authority making the claim provides such evidence, I will continue to think they are full of shit.

How do you know they haven't already done exactly that and that all of these policies are the direct result of past experience?
Because there is no evidence of this being the case. This isn't some secret national security op. If the policies are based on actual encounters and compiled data then they can parrot out whichever administration staff hasn't resigned yet to tell the American public why this approach may seem cruel but is actually necessary.

No one is issuing waivers here. You haven't mentioned any issues. You just keep talking vaguely about bad people doing bad things because they are bad.
Yes I have mentioned the issues. How specific do you want to get? You being purposefully obtuse on a point you already conceded does nothing to futher the disucssion.

See.
See what? There is evidence that 40% of cops perpetrate domestic violence. Do you have any evidence that proves otherwise?


I find it odd that you are focusing on pedantry instead of the actual, overarching topic. I have made my position abundantly clear, and it seems to mostly align with yours. I would be willing to concede that trafficking is a real concern in these camps, and that separating kids might be necessary as a measure to investigate. I would then say there needs to be a process that ensures kids aren't permanently separated from their parents when whatever method of confirmation comes back positive. This seems incredibly common sense to me, but feel free to let me know if you disagree.

Now that we have tackled that problem, lets give these folks some acceptable living conditions. Lets also not have CBP staff that mock and dehumanize those in these camps (and definitely not make a private facebook group to share said dehumanizing behavior). Maybe include some provisions to cover basic human needs and I think we are good to go.

18
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: July 07, 2019, 04:57:24 AM »
Okay, there is a lot to unpack here...

Literally anything can be said about literally any movie ever created. I could be wrong but sounds like you're saying I shouldn't bring my subjective opinions to a discussion about a movie. Personally, if I were you and had a problem with the use of that word and was interested in having a discussion about something, I would have asked for clarification on what was meant by it but, sure, I guess just saying "thats a dumb meme" and moving on works too.
Yes, literally anything can be. However, criticisms of media tend to include arguments and examples to reinforce those arguments. So, yes you should bring your subjective opinions, but maybe build an actual argument first if you are going to play critic. If you are going to churn out a lazy critique then I am not going to put in the effort to ask you to clarify your lack of effort. Your first post about the movie was a reasonable and generalized take on why you didn't like it. I gave a meme reply about you being wrong, and then you replied with a bunch of empty phrases used in a 100-level film critique course.

First, sure, but that's not really a defense of the film as much as just a statement. If the general discussion was "Far from Home is worse than most MCU films" then yeah, but I'm talking about it as its own film. I don't really try to judge movies relative to others. B, I don't agree. On a super broad scale of "you know the bad guy will lose", sure, but on the level of basically being able to run a play-by-play in real-time with the film I definitely don't think so. Scene to scene I could basically tell everything they were going to do, I mouthed a few lines of dialogue out as characters said them because the dialogue was so bland and full of tropes and recycled lines that you could probably give the script a once-over and recite it verbatim (that's hyperbole, of course). Most Marvel films I'd say, sure, you likely have some general idea what's going to happen, but there tend to be moment-to-moment surprises, even if they're not massive plot twists. Plot is a lot more intricate than synopses; you can have an overall-predictable plot that's written well enough and cleverly enough that the moment-to-moment dialogue and actions aren't rote and predictable. That's where I feel like most Marvel movies lie. I feel like this one isn't even there.
I don't actually believe you were reciting lines with the characters, but this is a more believable criticism overall even if it isn't actually addressing any specifics of the movie.

I added "if you know the character" intentionally, since all you need to know is Mysterio is about illusion and trickery and you've already figured out "oh, all the elementals are fake, illusions he made, and he's just trying to look like a hero". Where they tried to be "clever" with it was, in the trailers, making it look like he was a hero in this interpretation and the Elementals were the villains.
Well, yes, if you know for sure that Mysterio is the villain then yes you can make plenty of inferences. But you still didn't know for certain until things actually happened. Then hindsight kicks in and you pat yourself on the back for being right all along. It would have made for a more interesting movie to do something different with Mysterio for sure, but it plays out like every other Marvel movie.

Sounds like we're on the same page here.
In general, I think we certainly are. But we are doing high brow analysis now so we can't actually agree on anything.

I'm talking about their evolution in their movies, not during the Blip. Character arcs and development is a core conceit of filmmaking. I 100% absolutely disagree that nobody really evolves in these movies, even if the evolution can be rather standard. Even a blander film (from a critical standpoint) like Doctor Strange has him evolve from a wealthy, selfish egotist to finding passion in something and realizing that he does care about saving people. He starts out barely acknowledging other people and constantly talking about himself to listening, finding some level of humility (though certainly still cocky) and letting people in. His worldview is pretty literally expanded. His changes are not only referenced by plot, but shown in his dialogue (for one extremely small and specific example, the fact that he expected things of others early on without any response on his part, then later on would actually thank people for things), the way he carries himself, the way he acts around others, and through his actions. I picked Doctor Strange because I enjoyed the movie but I think it was, artistically, kinda mediocre and shares a number of problems with Far from Home, but I still think it did a much better job with the basics at the very least.
Doctor Strange is probably one of the most cheesy examples to use. He is basically a Mr. Scrooge that finally realizes he is capable of empathy. I liked the movie as well, but there still isn't any depth there.

If there was a movie that had a toddler in it and thirty minutes of the movie was the toddler screaming and pooping on the floor, it may be realistic but that doesn't make it a better movie. Real-life dialogue and conversations are generally not very interesting or creative, at least not the majority of the time, either; hence why I didn't complain that people spoke in too grandiose a manner or that conversations weren't meandering enough.
FFH was a slightly hyperbolic stereotype of American teenagers and seemed pretty accurate. It at least aligns with other terrible movies about teen angst and relationships.

Similar to above, I hugely disagree. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, another MCU film I'm not a big fan of, explores the concept and idea of family in an amazingly organic way. We've already seen how similarly-dysfunctional people can be brought together in the first, but the sequel then digs a little deeper into that concept, the whole movie having him search for his biological father, feeling like it would fill some hole in his heart of an incomplete family, only to realize at the very end that blood isn't what's important and that, in this case, Yondu was more of a father than Ego ever could have been. It explores the concept with Nebula and Gamora as well, their relationship as sisters and their relationship with their, uh, "adopted father".
The theme of family in GotG 2 was incredibly forced. Oh hey Yondu was really just hard on him because he was the father Peter never had. I know, let's have Peter and his real dad play magic catch in the front yard, just like all those kids back on earth. Welp, we can't have any happiness so five minutes after meeting papa it all has to fall apart. I will concede that the relationship building between Nebula and Gamora was really well done, and added a lot to later films.

And I'm curious what makes him more interesting in this than previous iterations to you, since the movie Beck is basically just any generic Mysterio from the comics, just underutilized and with way fewer interesting scenes and abilities.
Because there is a real face behind it this time. A rugged, handsome face of a guy with some acting chops. And the illusion tech was still hella cool and stayed at least somewhat true to the character. Obviously comics and animated versions have a lot more leeway on what they can do visually and stay on a budget. I'd be surprised if Mysterio is actually dead and this wasn't just some set up for a later Sinister Six film.

In a good Mysterio appearance, in the comics, he's almost the Marvel equivalent of Scarecrow, though infinitely more flashy. He either uses his illusions to distract and confuse his foes, or he uses them to create nightmarish dreamscapes forged of their own mind (so he'd have them think; in reality, it's all tech [generally]), a chance for the hero to confront the dark side of themselves them and grow from it. Not...I dunno...sicing drones on his foe and having a shootout.
Eh, I just think you are wrong here. The dreamscapes were really cool visually and a bit mind-bending and deceptive. Peter is still too innocent in this iteration to have much a dark side. Unless he just really blames himself for Tony, which wouldn't make a lot of sense.

I played Spider-Man PS4 release date. It was very good and enjoyed it. While I appreciate all the assumptions of what I wanted and expected of the film, I've basically been telling you this entire time what I wanted from it—
Up until this post you haven't said what you wanted, so all I was left with was assumptions. You complained a bit, but offered no real examples of what you didn't like.

I assume you're interested in a discussion and not just "winning", given the effort in your response, so if you want clarification on anything all you have to do is ask. Which you get in responses, so I feel you're being a little hasty in being so dismissive. You also seem to be arguing (and I could be way off) less that this movie was decent and more that I shouldn't like other MCU movies, which doesn't have much to do with the quality of this movie. Of course, I just explained why I don't think it's the same as other MCU films so I do look forward to hearing your thoughts rather than assuming and pre-emptively dismissing them. :] I thought I made it pretty clear my expectations weren't very high before the film. Had it the depth of the game I'd be super happy with that, obviously, but I expected it to have the depth of...most okay-to-decent movies, ones that tend to accomplish more than this film in 3/4 the runtime.
I mean, there is no winning when arguing about any kind of media. I was mostly just giving you a hard time because you have mentioned that you want to work on your critiquing skills and I wanted to take you to task over it for no real reason other than to do it. Otherwise, you will end up just being another Saddam who writes paragraphs of criticisms that have no substance or original thought (not saying you do this). To me, this just isn't the movie for such an in-depth analysis. It is another generic superhero film that just happen to have some characters I like and some decent visuals. That is just my personal subjective take.

I mean if you just take a few of my critiques and don't do those, that's what they would've had to have done to make me like it. Saying "I don't think there was anything they could have done to make you like it" is nothing more than a meme trope response.
Okay, so if they would have added "soul" you would have liked it. Very tangible and very cool.

It can literally be used in every movie discussion ever. lol jk, but, for real, it's a bizarre answer that seems to insinuate you (contrary to saying you don't understand what I expected several times) very thoroughly know my expectations and what I want from a movie. Especially when my post was all about what I wanted from the movie. I like most of the MCU films. I didn't expect a Mysterio movie, but I don't think it's absurd of me to expect a character to be interesting. Batman Begins used a B-list Batman villain interestingly, and he had half the screen-time of this one. I mean damn they could've just given me a flashier Scarecrow with a fishbowl head and it would've been a way more interesting use of character than watching fishbowl-head spin around in a cloud of green dust while shooting lasers for 90% of his scenes in-character. Ant-Man had one of the most laughably bad Marvel villains but at least it used his abilities in interesting and varied ways. Even Homecoming kept putting Vulture in constantly differing situations so that he'd have to use his suit and general moveset creatively, like on the boat or in the warehouse and on the plane. I didn't want a ton from the movie, I just wanted it to be interesting in some way, to bring more than the absolute bare minimum to the table, and sometimes just nothing at all.
I still don't know exactly what you want. The examples you gave from other Marvel films about character development, depth, motivation, etc. are for the most part just as bad as everything in FFH. There is rarely any depth to it and I think you have just convinced yourself otherwise in some of these cases. I liked Mysterio overall. His predictable woe-is-me revenge plot doesn't really explain the entirety of his character but it isn't like there are any other deep or even consistent motivations in the MCU. Hell, while Thanos is at least consistent, there is all of a few minutes explaining his motivation and how he came to the super specific conclusion he did. But, that is off the topic of FFH. At the end of the day, FFH was fun and you are wrong for not liking it. Stop trying to be so contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 07, 2019, 12:28:51 AM »
Ah yes, the "you don't actually care" line. That's always very informative in a discussion about political policy. "Well X policy doesn't matter because you don't REALLY care" is a nonsensical argument. It's not even a moral stance, it's just you making strange assertions about motives instead of actions.
What on earth are you rambling about? We are talking about affording other humans basic dignity, not the entirety of of immigration policy. I don't think that much even needs to change. And if kids are going to be separated from their parents under the guise of sincere human trafficking concerns then there needs to be a policy/method in place that guarantees they are reunited when it is confirmed they are actually family. Then maybe provide a few basic necessities and don't treat others as if they were less than human.

Do you have some numbers to show that most of the children coming through the border are with their real family?
I am not making the claim that most, or even a significant number are traffickers. It seems people who think that is the case should provide the numbers, since they bear the burden of proof.

Do we know that the vast majority of border foot traffic isn't some form of human trafficking?
I would assume the very smart people running CBP have methods to determine this. They could even compile the statistics on it and formulate policy based on that.

Also, some inhumane treatment by CBP staff isn't good, it also doesn't warrant throwing out the entire process.
You are grossly hand waiving away some absolute abhorrent behavior. Also, no one is saying we should throw out the whole process...

Should we ban police because some police are bad?
Yes. I hear at least 40% are bad.

That argument doesn't make much sense when drawn to its eventual conclusion. "We can't do X process because X process is not perfect" is not a valid political stance.
I suppose it is a good thing that literally no one outside of the strawman you have constructed here is suggesting that argument.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 06, 2019, 09:26:47 PM »
Look, when the pay sucks and the job is hard, sometimes ya gotta scrape at the bottom and that means hiring people who just wanna make mexicans suffer.

Wait, are you suggesting that they aren't sending their best?...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 168  Next >