*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4000 on: July 04, 2019, 11:04:28 PM »
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

*breathes*

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

And yet the left will call this very reasonable statement Nazism.

I don't think it's the "optionally-attended camps" that most people have issue with. It's the separation of children from parents (inb4 but wHaT aBOuT tRaFfiCKinG that the right absolutely cares about...) and the shit conditions and objectively SS-like behavior from more than a few CBP staff...

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10026
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #4001 on: July 05, 2019, 11:52:56 AM »
imagine being more bothered by word choice than basic human dignity
I don't know about "more bothered", but trying to alter the phrasing to make the situation look worse is a pet peeve of mine. Talking about the actual issues without trying to stretch the truth is more likely to be productive, if not for any other reason then because it shuts detractors up.

Illegal immigrants are being held in absolutely appalling conditions. That's shit. Regardless of how they crossed the border, or why they crossed the border, they should be treated with basic dignity.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Trump
« Reply #4002 on: July 05, 2019, 03:02:47 PM »
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

*breathes*

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

I realized something...

The people in the centers aren't complaining.  Its Americans.
And such conditions are probably better than where they came from.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7064
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4003 on: July 06, 2019, 03:43:25 PM »
I don't think it's the "optionally-attended camps" that most people have issue with. It's the separation of children from parents (inb4 but wHaT aBOuT tRaFfiCKinG that the right absolutely cares about...) and the shit conditions and objectively SS-like behavior from more than a few CBP staff...

Do you believe there's adequate evidence that the children actually belong to the people bringing them across the border? If there isn't, do you believe those children should be kept alongside individuals that may or may not be actual guardians?

It's not unusual for children to be separated from criminal parents. Child trafficking is not a joke and PuTiTing It LiKe ThIs doens't make it any less serious.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4004 on: July 06, 2019, 04:26:51 PM »
How much diligence are they putting in to the decision to separate children from their parents?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4005 on: July 06, 2019, 08:22:00 PM »
I don't think it's the "optionally-attended camps" that most people have issue with. It's the separation of children from parents (inb4 but wHaT aBOuT tRaFfiCKinG that the right absolutely cares about...) and the shit conditions and objectively SS-like behavior from more than a few CBP staff...

Do you believe there's adequate evidence that the children actually belong to the people bringing them across the border? If there isn't, do you believe those children should be kept alongside individuals that may or may not be actual guardians?

It's not unusual for children to be separated from criminal parents. Child trafficking is not a joke and PuTiTing It LiKe ThIs doens't make it any less serious.

It isn't a joke. And it is very serious. What I am saying is that, in general, the right doesn't actually give a shit about Mexican kids who are victims of trafficking.

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. But, I am sure the very smart and highly qualified individuals running these investigations can promptly figure this out. I even believe they can figure it out without permanently separating kids from their families with no way to be reunited (which has happened repeatedly).

None of this addresses the inhumane behavior of multiple CBP staff, which you seemed to casually gloss over.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4006 on: July 06, 2019, 09:00:27 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.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4007 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?...

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7064
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4008 on: July 07, 2019, 12:04:50 AM »
It isn't a joke. And it is very serious. What I am saying is that, in general, the right doesn't actually give a shit about Mexican kids who are victims of trafficking.

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.

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. But, I am sure the very smart and highly qualified individuals running these investigations can promptly figure this out. I even believe they can figure it out without permanently separating kids from their families with no way to be reunited (which has happened repeatedly).

None of this addresses the inhumane behavior of multiple CBP staff, which you seemed to casually gloss over.

Do you have some numbers to show that most of the children coming through the border are with their real family? Do we know that the vast majority of border foot traffic isn't some form of human trafficking?

Also, some inhumane treatment by CBP staff isn't good, it also doesn't warrant throwing out the entire process. Should we ban police because some police 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.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 12:07:00 AM by Rushy »

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4009 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.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7064
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4010 on: July 07, 2019, 01:17:20 AM »
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 specific evidence that human dignity is being sufficiently violated by these centers?

 
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.

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.

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? 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.

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.

How do you know they haven't already done exactly that and that all of these policies are the direct result of past experience?

You are grossly hand waiving away some absolute abhorrent behavior. Also, no one is saying we should throw out the whole process...

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 hear at least 40% are bad.

See.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 01:19:40 AM by Rushy »

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4011 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.

Re: Trump
« Reply #4012 on: July 07, 2019, 06:55:05 AM »
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?...

No... I'm suggesting that racist, angry, violent, abusive people ARE the best they can get.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4013 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.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 10:17:28 AM by junker »

Re: Trump
« Reply #4014 on: July 07, 2019, 02:18:46 PM »
No... I'm suggesting that racist, angry, violent, abusive people ARE the best they can get.
Apologies, I was memeing.

Ah.
Wonder why Trump would assume any country would want to lose their best?

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4015 on: July 07, 2019, 07:54:03 PM »
I find it odd that you are focusing on pedantry instead of the actual, overarching topic.

lol, did you forget who you were arguing with or something?
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7064
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4016 on: July 07, 2019, 10:22:55 PM »
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.

If I already conceded the point, why do you need clarification on what I meant? How did I concede a point you either didn't make or don't understand? Seems more like you're more interested in meandering in a pointless discussion then adding anything of value to it.

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.

Sigh, so do you or don't you believe what you said you believe in the quote?

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.

You are literally the first person to bring up the word "trafficking" in this conversation, you nut.

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.

Ah yes, the conspiracy mindset. "Everything the government says is wrong, therefore I can ignore absolutely all evidence coming from it" where "the government" is defined as "any part of the government I happen to not like." Since you've prefaced anything you say with this argument, now if I provide evidence contrary to your mindset, you'll simply say "yeah well the government is just lying!" You're better than this, Junker. Maybe you should stop posting while you're intoxicated.

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.

This is the kind of data I asked you to source for your beliefs that you don't believe and you declined. Instead, expecting me to spoon feed you evidence for claims I never made. I've only ever asked you questions in this encounter and you've refused to answer them, or answered them and then argued with your own answers.

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.

Where? All I see is "bad people are bad, mmkay?" with no sources or issues mentioned whatsoever.

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

What evidence? If it exists, then I would like to see it.


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.

Projection: The Musical

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.

What folks and what living conditions? You haven't made a determination who we're talking about, why we're talking about them, or what sort of conditions they live in. You've put no line of thought in any of this gibberish.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 10:24:37 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4017 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.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7064
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4018 on: July 08, 2019, 12:06:57 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.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 12:10:03 AM by Rushy »

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8799
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4019 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.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 01:42:26 AM by junker »