Right or 'Alt-Right'?

[Cunt]

Ah, I don't think I responded to the op. What I did respond to answered the question you've repeatedly asked since.

I've also answered it elsewhere for you.

Which question?

Is there a chance we are talking past each other? Rather than answering each other?

If you keep things indirect, I'll assume you just want to keep insulting, rather than discussing.

You're last comment to 42 lead me to believe that a useful conversation with you may not be possible.

Try being direct.

You don't seem willing to consider that. I understand. But life is ugly, and it's better than just possible that two idiots aren't going to make much progress arguing with each other.

Do you want to have an argument? Lets decide what the question is, and how we will discuss it.

If you just want to keep shit-talking though, no problem.

[pErvinalia]

sorry man. I guess I've met my match. I can usually avoid getting tied up with people like you. But after all the anger and frustration I still want to know what makes you tick.

Do you know how crazy you are?

I know just how resistant you are to discussing the subject. Most NPC's have only personal attacks anyway, so I'm not really surprised.

I looked through the thread. The only person who suggested examples of right vs alt-right was Forty Two. He was quickly contradicted by other NPC's who curiously offered no examples of their own.

Same as you. Everything you contributed here is in one hand. If I shit into the other, can you guess which will fill up first?

Can you highlight for us someone who self-identifies as an NPC? If not, we need to dismiss it as a meaningless slur.

[Cunt]

Can you highlight for us someone who self-identifies as an NPC? If not, we need to dismiss it as a meaningless slur.

It sounds like a meaningless slur to me. No need for you to feel bad about being compared to a computer-generated opponent. Most of us aren't that original anyway.

[Sean Hayden]

--responding to cunt elsewhere about his immigrant, crimmigrant nonsense

You mean people here legally vs people here illegally? I don't see a need to change the language. There are legal means of entering, and illegal means right? That works for me.

Why do you want me to lose respect for someone just because they broke the law? That sounds dumb. Do you apply that equally to all laws?

The post cunt responded to here:

With immigration, for me, it's more a worry about the lack of nuance and the attitudes Trump and co rhetoric create around the issue. I'm afraid it's a slippery slope argument from me, but it's one I can't shake. We are a nation of immigrants. We need to ensure that we honor that fact while enforcing immigration law and do what's best for people seeking asylum. This is especially true where we may be responsible for the asylum seekers situation.

cunt

Are you equating immigrants with crimmigrants?

Should immigration law be enforced? Or would you rather not because it might hurt some of those 'brown people'?

And YOU can't just answer...

Should immigration law be enforced?

So you do think immigration law should be enforced, is that right?

Why is it so hard to get you to say so clearly?

Is it possibly because, no matter how that law is enforced, there will be families torn apart?

--and again the post you originally responded to cunt

With immigration, for me, it's more a worry about the lack of nuance and the attitudes Trump and co rhetoric create around the issue. I'm afraid it's a slippery slope argument from me, but it's one I can't shake. We are a nation of immigrants. We need to ensure that we honor that fact while enforcing immigration law and do what's best for people seeking asylum. This is especially true where we may be responsible for the asylum seekers situation.

[Cunt]

so I missed that you were in favour of enforcing immigration law.

My apologies.

With all your virtue signalling, I could have sworn you were against Trump and his governments action to finally take this issue seriously, after years of 'sanctuary cities' failing to really satisfy the voters.

The nuance will have to come from elsewhere - if it isn't written in law, I say write it. If you suggested a clear, sensible change, you would find me on your side - really.

Having variable enforcement sounds to me like horribly disrespectful to the staff we hire to do the enforcement. Pretend your daughter was going to have to have a job at ICE. How would you change things to protect her?

Can you answer this - do crimmigrants ever deserve to 'line-jump' ahead of lawful immigrants? Should preference be given to whoever got to the US first? To the eldest? To whoever has paid more taxes? How to prioritize which group to draw from, when there is limited immigration as decreed by law...?

[Sean Hayden]

You shouldn't take that to mean that I support your idea of immigration law. You really are a black and white guy man. If I say I support enforcing immigration law then you say good, because Trump is getting serious about it. But there is more than one way to enforce immigration law. Obama, for example, made a point of prioritizing who should be deported, who should be allowed to stay while their case was heard, and who for all intents and purposes should be left alone. That is one way of enforcing immigration law.

It's not if you support immigration law you support this. If illegal immigrants are criminals, and you support justice, then you support this kind of immigration enforcement. You keep trying to make the world like that. But I'm not getting on that ride with you man.

[Cunt]

You shouldn't take that to mean that I support your idea of immigration law. You really are a black and white guy man. If I say I support enforcing immigration law then you say good, because Trump is getting serious about it. But there is more than one way to enforce immigration law. Obama, for example, made a point of prioritizing who should be deported, who should be allowed to stay while their case was heard, and who for all intents and purposes should be left alone. That is one way of enforcing immigration law.

It's not if you support immigration law you support this. If illegal immigrants are criminals, and you support justice, then you support this kind of immigration enforcement. You keep trying to make the world like that. But I'm not getting on that ride with you man.

The world IS like that.

I would like to see NO illegal immigrants in any country. See if you disagree with my methods.
1. Deport anyone who won't pursue a legal resident status (citizen, temporary foreign worker, student visa etc.)
2. Divide ICE into two groups. One to enforce, another to aid. (in Canada, the only person to help you with immigration here in the north, is the immigration officer. A decent woman, doing a difficult job, but really, a bit of a conflict seems to be there)
3. Work hard to move anyone who suits into a lawful immigration stream, then prioritize that as fairly as possible ('fair' meaning what the voters choose)

As to deporting, I think there should be a prison available for those who choose to refuse deportation. This is a contraversial idea, but let me go on a bit...

I have long advocated for prison improvements. As a measure of 'good enough', a judge should have no problem meeting their granddaughter for lunch in such a place. It would take more staff, and more scrutiny. A lot more. It might not ever be achievable, but that is the quality of 'institution' we should be running.

In such a prison, the place should also be elective. For example, if you decide you 'just can't', you can self-sentence for a period of time. If someone needs respite, prison should be safe and appealing enough that they would choose it for their own care. This is the kind of 'prison' I suggest, and if someone is being deported into danger, they shouldn't mind choosing this kind of lockup.

I don't want to hurt people. Even criminals. Even violent criminals. I really like that, as a country, we don't kill people for crimes (at least not openly). It's expensive to have that kind of arrangement, but I think it's worth spending a lot on.

So are we so far apart in our views? I honestly have sympathy for the LEO's who have to carry out these orders. Sure, everyone says they hate Trump, but what ends up really playing out, is that ICE and the other staff are vilified for doing their jobs. Not for doing them badly, but for doing it at all.

This is why I would like you to consider your young daughter working for ICE. Trying to be respectful of those victims of circumstance, instead of just the moist-eyed separated families.

[Sean Hayden]

I would like to see NO illegal immigrants in any country.

--well, put what you would like to see in one hand...

Seriously, the world is like what Cunt? It's not black and white.

I'm not interested in trying to write immigration law. I don't know enough to do that. If you reread the original post you responded to one more time, I think you'll see my complaint is about the lack of nuance and the attitudes that Trump and co, and now you, bring to the issue. We need more nuance.

The drug war is a good example of the kind of problems black and white thinking causes. For many years, the entire drug war really, black and white thinking dominated policy. Like you, many people thought the goal should be to end drug use altogether, and like you, they saw a clear path following simple logic. Many really believed it was an attainable goal. Well, it turns out that it isn't so simple. Drug law enforcement requires nuance, and a willingness to challenge seemingly sound assumptions about how the world works.

One place we might inject a bit of nuance in our discussion is into your immigrant crimmigrant complaint and how my 'we are a nation of immigrants' comment triggered you. It seems that you believe our being a nation of immigrants has nothing at all to do with the issue of legal vs illegal immigration. But I think it does. Let's take just the simplest and perhaps most natural means of tying the two together: whether illegal, or legal, the same promise of a better life may have prompted both immigrants to try their luck. This is important for a number of reasons. But keeping this simple --for my sake, not yours-- consider what possible impact this may have on how accurate and useful for doing good a label of crimmigrant, with all its baggage, can really be.

[Cunt]

I would like to see NO illegal immigrants in any country.

--well, put what you would like to see in one hand...

Seriously, the world is like what Cunt? It's not black and white.

I'm not interested in trying to write immigration law. I don't know enough to do that. If you reread the original post you responded to one more time, I think you'll see my complaint is about the lack of nuance and the attitudes that Trump and co, and now you, bring to the issue. We need more nuance.

The drug war is a good example of the kind of problems black and white thinking causes. For many years, the entire drug war really, black and white thinking dominated policy. Like you, many people thought the goal should be to end drug use altogether, and like you, they saw a clear path following simple logic. Many really believed it was an attainable goal. Well, it turns out that it isn't so simple. Drug law enforcement requires nuance, and a willingness to challenge seemingly sound assumptions about how the world works.

One place we might inject a bit of nuance in our discussion is into your immigrant crimmigrant complaint and how my 'we are a nation of immigrants' comment triggered you. It seems that you believe our being a nation of immigrants has nothing at all to do with the issue of legal vs illegal immigration. But I think it does. Let's take just the simplest and perhaps most natural means of tying the two together: whether illegal, or legal, the same promise of a better life may have prompted both immigrants to try their luck. This is important for a number of reasons. But keeping this simple --for my sake, not yours-- consider what possible impact this may have on how accurate and useful for doing good a label of crimmigrant, with all its baggage, can really be.

I don't want a label with baggage. 'Crimmigrant' is HILARIOUSLY bad at making this distinction.

But the 'immigrants' who built this country were, in the vast majority, lawful immigrants. Comparing them to people who came into a country illegally seems disrespectful of their civil, lawful behaviour.

A problem I often see, when the two groups are conflated, is that it obscures how vulnerable a crimmigrant is to law enforcement threats. This manifests in a number of ways, which are damned near indistinguishable from slavery.

That's why I would like to see no illegal immigrants. Well, one of the big reasons anyway. It's also why I think an elective prison choice could be a best balance. If the individual honestly would choose 'not-so-good' life in a prison over deportation, then it almost surely IS inhumane to deport them. (even if they lawfully 'deserve' to be deported)

It isn't a simple issue, but allowing the law to continually be broken can't be a good answer. Unsecured borders don't seem a workable one, either.

[Hermit]

I think an elective prison choice could be a best balance. If the individual honestly would choose 'not-so-good' life in a prison over deportation, then it almost surely IS inhumane to deport them. (even if they lawfully 'deserve' to be deported)

Witches are made of wood. Well known fact, that. So, to test if someone is a witch you put the suspect in a sack, then drop the sack into a river or a lake. It it sinks, the drowned suspect was obviously not a witch. If it keeps bobbing along on the surface, you retrieve it and burn the witch.

No, I will not explain it to you. Previous experience has proven that attempts to explain things to you are an exercise in futility, Father Dougal McGuire.

[Sean Hayden]

It's not at all disrespectful Cunt. For one, the legal route may have been easier. It's easier for some today than others. How much can you really say is down to the characteristics of the immigrant vs the situation each has faced? Certainly not enough to claim that one has disrespected the other by breaking the law.

Furthermore, the focus is on the shared motivation and understanding its relationship to the label crimmigrant.

I'm glad you think that's a bad label. It really is awful.

Why do you think the government allows people to break the law? Do you think it's possible to not allow people to break the law?

[Brian Peacock]

... and do you think The Law defines the absolute bounds of morality? In other words, is it necessary for laws to be good, or to just be obeyed?

[Cunt]

I think an elective prison choice could be a best balance. If the individual honestly would choose 'not-so-good' life in a prison over deportation, then it almost surely IS inhumane to deport them. (even if they lawfully 'deserve' to be deported)

Witches are made of wood. Well known fact, that. So, to test if someone is a witch you put the suspect in a sack, then drop the sack into a river or a lake. It it sinks, the drowned suspect was obviously not a witch. If it keeps bobbing along on the surface, you retrieve it and burn the witch.

No, I will not explain it to you. Previous experience has proven that attempts to explain things to you are an exercise in futility, Father Dougal McGuire.

I don't see what you are trying to communicate here.

All I am suggesting, is that they have a (decent enough to be) elective prison, and make that choice available for those being deported.

IF they prefer it.

It is a 'last option' for those who truly fear to leave the country. What this has to do with the size of your cows isn't really clear.