Page 128 of 228 FirstFirst ... 2878118126127128129130138178 ... LastLast
Results 1,271 to 1,280 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1271
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Irony, with consideration to the above quote, what are the requirements for a policy to be "morally agnostic"? What makes all the border fearmongering different?
    You should start with a less fallacious pretense if you actually want a discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    there is no right or wrong or moral choice about a zero tolerance policy?
    Correct. The question is effective vs ineffective.

  2. #1272
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    The policy itself is morally agnostic. If anything, it appears you're arguing the outcome is morally incorrect and, if you point back to policy, you're forced to acknowledge the EA was the only thing that tried to explicitly resolve the immorality (which could be in violation of Flores). Zero tolerance was a policy, in itself, likely necessitated by Arizona vs the US. So, circle back to the very beginning... There nothing fundamentally wrong/ immoral with the zero tolerance enforcement strategy, in fact, it is the only way to maximize compliance. Using the "victim-hood" of the outcome is a way of sneaking in a political ideology under the guise of compassion; this is the dangerous conflation that I find absolutely reprehensible. Had we stopped the "evil" virtue signaling at the beginning, then we can see that in the broader context there is an urgency for discussion of immigration laws which we'll never have with the 2 idiotic sides of extremism.
    I don't follow your logic and I don't see how to I am forced to acknowledge the EO tried to resolve the immorality of the situation. If I'm understanding your position, and please correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying a policy can be morally agnostic even if the outcome is morally reprehensible?

    Also, can you explain how you see the EO as solving a moral problem? Are you suggesting that a "zero tolerance policy" is preferred because it will discourage people from attempting to cross the border with their kids thus stopping the separation of families?
    Last edited by d0cwho; 11-05-2018 at 12:25 PM.

  3. #1273
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    You should start with a less fallacious pretense if you actually want a discussion.
    In what way is it fallacious?
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  4. #1274
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    I don't follow your logic and I don't see how to I am forced to acknowledge the EO tried to resolve the immorality of the situation. If I'm understanding your position, and please correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying a policy can be morally agnostic even if the outcome is morally reprehensible?
    It is factual that intermittent reinforcement is dangerous; it encourages people to "play the game." As it relates to policy, it is absolutely ineffective. Conversely, continuous reinforcement (zero tolerance) of policy is effective. The decision is "effective vs ineffective." There is no morality embedded in the facts. So, if you want an effective immigration policy you have to be willing to enforce it.

  5. #1275
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Correct. The question is effective vs ineffective.
    how effective a policy is is directly related to how moral it is.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #1276
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    It is factual that intermittent reinforcement is dangerous; it encourages people to "play the game." As it relates to policy, it is absolutely ineffective. Conversely, continuous reinforcement (zero tolerance) of policy is effective. The decision is "effective vs ineffective." There is no morality embedded in the facts. So, if you want an effective immigration policy you have to be willing to enforce it.
    zero tolerance is highly ineffective in almost every place its been studied.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #1277
    but now that we agree that trump changed the policies ... your argument that obama and trumps policies were identical is laid bare, and you are ready to now answer my question.

    is trumps policy of child, baby, and even newborn separation and self defense in a court of law, a moral one, or an evil one?

    again, we are all in agreement now that what obama was doing, and what trump did is different. so that can't be a response.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #1278
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    how effective a policy is is directly related to how moral it is.
    Hahaha.



    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    In what way is it fallacious?
    In the same ways as pretty much any conspiracy that involves George Soros.
    Last edited by ironyusa; 11-05-2018 at 01:13 PM.

  9. #1279
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    It is factual that intermittent reinforcement is dangerous; it encourages people to "play the game." As it relates to policy, it is absolutely ineffective. Conversely, continuous reinforcement (zero tolerance) of policy is effective. The decision is "effective vs ineffective." There is no morality embedded in the facts. So, if you want an effective immigration policy you have to be willing to enforce it.
    That didn't answer my question.

  10. #1280
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    That didn't answer my question.
    hasn't answered mine after 10+ pages.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •