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 - Universe Prince

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 244
1
3DHS / Re: Grave of the Fireflies, 1942 movie reviews
« on: August 18, 2010, 03:13:51 PM »
Busby Berkeley. The man's name was Busby Berkeley.

2
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 10, 2010, 03:52:00 AM »
Your reply doesn't really fill me with confidence, BT. Oh well. This place seems little good beyond frustration these days anyway. Let me know when you get that whole sense of community thing going.

3
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 09, 2010, 11:53:54 PM »

Racism is often the end result of irrational prejudice and/ or fear.

Perhaps in the context of immigration specifically from the southern borders you could explain how these irrational prejudices and or fears would produce a different result. What specific irrational prejudices and fears are you referring to?


Perhaps I could, but I'm not sure why I should. I am not eager to start "no, that is not what I said" cycle all over again.

4
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 09, 2010, 11:50:07 PM »

I see your understanding to be understanding only half of the situation , the reciprocal of your position is also true.
If we restrict any sort of person or comodity even if  only mildly , the restricted element will migrate through any chink in the fence.


How, exactly, is that the reciprocal of my position? I ask because it sounds rather like my position. Which makes me wonder if you're paying attention.

5
3DHS / Re: America Goes Dark
« on: August 09, 2010, 11:43:32 PM »
I doubt I would apply the term 'excellent article' to much of anything Krugman writes these days. And this article is no exception. He makes the far too common mistake of assuming that governments of various sizes are all cash strapped because the taxes are too low. Taxes are not too low, and lack of revenue is not the problem. Even if taxes were doubled, there was no resulting harm to the economy and government revenues were then doubled, in short order local, state and federal government would find themselves cash-strapped again because the problem is spending practices and attitudes held by governments. The federal government will have, by estimation, more total revenue for 2010 than it had in 2000 and not too far from double what it had in 1995. Yet, the government still complains it needs more money. The idea that the problem is a lack of revenue is complete foolishness.

6
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 07, 2010, 06:09:37 AM »

So you want the restrictions against border crossing without official permissions to be strictly enforced?


What I want is for restrictions to be reduced to a just and reasonable level so that enforcing them is just, reasonable and manageable. None of which is currently the case.


Without a good fence submitting application becomes ,practicly, optional.


If you make immigration simple and relatively easy with a relatively short waiting time, most of the folks will enter legally rather than break the law and/or risk death by crossing the desert and climbing or cutting fences. So I suggest that without good immigration law, you get what we have now, a fence and border enforcement that are practically useless.

7
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 07, 2010, 05:59:50 AM »
Resolved: My discussing anything here has devolved into a matter of constantly having to correct people about what I said. If I were to say "the sun rises in the east," someone would surely try to insist I meant that the west is forever in the dark. If I were to say "selling raw milk should not be against the law," someone would eventually draw a comparison between allowing the sale of raw milk and allowing murder. If I were to say someone supports strictly restricting and controlling immigration, someone would try to claim what I really meant is that he wants a closed border.

I'm not saying anyone should make things easy for me. I just wish you all would give me credit for saying what I actually said, rather than this "must read between the lines" nonsense where you infer anything you goddamn please, and then assume and assert that I secretly meant to say whatever inference you have imagined.

I am not talking in code. I am not being obscure or esoteric or obfuscatory or enigmatic. I am (most of the time) trying to be tactful and polite (as best my limited skills in such things allow), but I am not hiding any secret meanings, insults, messages, accusations or codes in my sentences.

I am, however, getting really tired of having to correct people in every post.

For example, BT seems to think what I really meant was "But at the same time you have laws on the books that are not inherently racist, wishing for enforcement of those laws is motivated by racism (irrational prejudice and/or fear)." That is clearly not what I said. You have to really be trying to force your inferred meaning into my sentences to think that I said something like that.

Why should I bother explaining myself when anything I say is going to be only further fodder for this sort of thing? What is the point? You are not really paying attention to what I say because you're so goddamned busy trying to force my words into some preconceived notion of whatever the frak you think it is you think you're arguing against.

BT said, "the demand that laws on the books be enforced is de facto proof of racism is just pure bullshit." In my reply, the first thing I said was "You're right." That is a statement of agreement with BT's assertion that supporting the enforcement of the laws on the book is not racism. I also said, "That does not mean, however, the support for the current system and/or for strictly enforced, highly restrictive immigration law isn't largely motivated by irrational prejudice and/or fear." Going by BT's reply to that, he certainly seems to think my agreement with his statement is a lie. He equated "irrational prejudice and/or fear" with racism. If I had intended to express that it was racism, I would have said "racism". But that is not what I said. And racism is not the only form of irrational prejudice or irrational fear. And a lack of racism does not mean a lack of irrational prejudice. But BT apparently assumes that I cannot have meant anything other than racism.

How am I supposed to engage in a discussion with someone who seems to assume what I mean before I've even said it? Apparently, I don't ever need to say anything here. You all seem very willing and able to assume you know what I "really" mean, and so you argue against that rather than what I say. There are times when I wonder if some of the replies I get are meant for someone else because they seem so completely unrelated to what I said. CU4LG complains that discussing things with me is too difficult because I insist on trying to clearly pin down definitions of terms used. How can I not so insist when this sort thing goes on all the time?

Not that long ago, BT expressed a desire to improve the quality of posts here "by encouraging those who post on the issues and discouraging those who post on personalities." That is certainly a good idea. I submit that another thing to be done to improve the quality of posts, and discussions, here would be to encourage not assuming constantly that the other person is trying to sneak in hidden meanings in his statements. You know, a little trust that the other person meant to say what he said rather whatever you think he might mean. BT also expressed a desire to rebuild a sense of community here. I submit that a little more trust and a lot less of the "must read between the lines" would go along way towards that goal. There is a time to read between the lines, and there is a time to grasp that one's debate opponent is not a sneaky bastard trying to pull one over on you or secretly insult you in front of everyone.

8
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 06, 2010, 03:38:12 PM »

The claims that immigration laws are racist [...] or that the demand that laws on the books be enforced is de facto proof of racism is just pure bullshit.


You're right. Having laws about immigration is not inherently racist. No one said it was. That does not mean, however, the support for the current system and/or for strictly enforced, highly restrictive immigration law isn't largely motivated by irrational prejudice and/or fear. It also does not mean current U.S. immigration law is just.


or that they are akin to segregation laws


From my perspective, that is sort of like saying there is nothing discriminatory about "separate but equal".

And I find interesting that so far no one is producing any arguments that the current law is just. At best I've seen an effort to say that supporting the current system isn't racist and an effort to equate illegal immigration with murder. Step up your game, fellas.

9
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 06, 2010, 01:22:40 AM »

Colored drinking fountain, my ass.


No thanks.

In any case, that the number of immigrants has increased overall (and is now in decline actually) does nothing to address the nature of the law or the fact that many people still end up waiting years for permission to enter legally. Just as the number of black people in the U.S. has and had nothing to do with the fact that racial segregation laws were unjust.

10
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 06, 2010, 12:05:55 AM »

The US is the last country that will ever have closed borders.


Good thing then no one here said the U.S. has closed borders, i'n'it?

11
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 06, 2010, 12:03:44 AM »

But no, that's not a policy of a closed border,


No, it isn't. It's a policy of strictly controlled immigration. If I had meant to say it was a policy of a closed border, I would have said so. And I would have been wrong. So since that would have been wrong and since I didn't mean to say it was a policy of a closed border, I therefore did not say that. Come on, guys. This ain't rocket science.

12
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 05, 2010, 11:58:50 PM »

Oh come on SIRS...lots of murders still happen even with the laws in place...
so golly gee our murder laws must be unjust!


That is a totally bogus argument. For one, no one said immigration law is unjust because people disobey it. For another, crossing the border is not a violation of a individual rights, but murder is. Equating the two is misleading and intellectually irresponsible.

13
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 05, 2010, 11:51:50 PM »

That's based on your opinion of being unjust.  Your say so, however doesn't make them so.  That's why your question isn't addressed to your satisfaction, because those you argue with on this topic, have not accepted your position that they are unjust, in the 1st place.  So, since the premice is already flawed, as it relates to immigration, you're never going to accept any answer.

My premise isn't flawed because you don't accept it. And I have yet to see an argument as to why the current immigration laws are just. So far all anyone seems to be able to muster up is that the law should be obeyed because it's the law. But that simply is not good enough. ("I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'")


But, if we want to address the question in a generic term, subtracting the immigration component, then you have to have a concensus that the law in question is unjust.

I was not aware just and unjust were matters of popular opinion. You seem to have a strange and troubling notion of what makes something just or unjust.


And when they are, then yes, the probvlem is the law, & the formula is legislative change, not simply breaking them, because they've been deemed unjust by........X

As I said before, I cannot blame them for breaking the law any more than I could have blamed a thirsty black man drinking from a "whites only" water fountain in the 1950s.

14
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 05, 2010, 11:34:17 PM »

As I have said before many times, I am fully in favor of government keeping known criminals and diseased people out of the country.

Not unless you are in favor all immagrants submitting a leagal application you are not.

If you don't favor giveing the government a chance to examine the record and health of all immagrants you are not in favor of excludeing the ones who won't submit themselves to examination.


Have I said I am not in favor of immigrants filling out paperwork or submitting applications? Have I said I am against giving government a change to check the records and health of those who wish to enter the country? No. So why would you assume such was my position?

15
3DHS / Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« on: August 05, 2010, 06:14:01 PM »

We have immigration laws, and we have a process to change them. In the meantime we have an illegals problem, who are entering the country illegally under current law.


Yes. So now I will repeat a question I posed earlier in the thread: When laws are unjust is the real problem the lawbreakers or the law?


What physics has to do with this, i do not know.


Don't be dense.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 244