Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.
These GOP-kooks always got that male rape on their mind.
No? That really doesn't ever happen. I mean, sure, if the person looked high or crazy, I wouldn't open the door, but otherwise, I'm just going to assume that a homeless person isn't going to take the hour+ walk to my house from downtown just to rape me personally. I mean sure, I'm almost unbearably sexy, but that's the key word, isn't it? Almost.
Jesus this kid needs proper Stranger Danger training, pronto.
There's a big difference between letting someone give me a roofie and answering my fucking door.
But is there really? I think you just lack imagination. think of the outside as your house, the door as a door, and the car as the outside with man wanting to do bad things to you if you don't practice proper child safety.
Maybe this is just GM’s sexual fantasy, let him revel in it.
Some of the nicest people I ever met were homeless ones... In contrast some of the worst people I ever met were rich kids.
Uhhmmm sorry but I live in a country that happily accepts immigrants, legal immigrants. I have worked with many, I have welcomed them into my extended family, I have them as friends. They have come from Egypt, Ireland, Germany, Ukraine, Poland, and Pakistan. I understand. All of them came here legally and almost all of them stand in the same place I do. It is not our job to help everyone, why should those that jump the line get in first, why did those that came here legally have to do all that work instead of just showing up at the border. Maybe it is you who don't understand, also I am only one generation removed on the whole immigration thing from you.
Oh jesus christ, man its a starting point in a debate, just because you don't like the comparison does not make it apples to oranges or a fallacy. Simplification is both the base for science and engineering, you don't start complicated you build up to it by solving the simple question first. Also they are a direct comparison so not apples to oranges. This is why the left and right cant get along because one just goes false, its a fallacy we cant talk about it.
I am going to ignore the whole butt-raping thing because that is not where I was going to go with it.....
But so you give the first person food, and the next day he brings a buddy and they both want food, next day they bring 2 more, and they bring more. When does it stop, when do you go I cant handle this much at once. Maybe there is a better way to handle this situation besides giving food to them at my door, maybe I should point them to the shelter that I donate money to, maybe you end up just telling them to fuck off. I don't know, but what you are doing by giving them food does not help them and only supports them in there current life. It does nothing to improve there life beyond that one meal, and they gain a dependency on you, losing more ability to take care of themselves.
Maybe it is better to show these people the proper way to get into the country (especially since the US will accept anyone without a criminal record, no need to prove you are a benefit to the country as of yet).
Cant argue with you on this. I have had some awesome talks with the homeless, I have gotten them meals and talked with them. You cant start trying to figure ways to fix things if you don't have an understanding of what those people have gone through to end up there. Now rich kids are mostly assholes especially the higher the education they have, it almost makes them pompous, they now know more then others, and they look down on them. Some of the best rich kids I ever met though were those that got knocked down a few pegs and now had to work there way back up gaining an understanding of what life for everyone else is like.
I think you're still missing the point. I am not attacking you or your opinion about immigrants, which I don't consider as extreme or a problem, you're fine dude, really. I am just telling you, that if my parents would have been born like 40 years later, they probably would not be accepted in Germany now, as the legal precedures have changed, governments are simply not welcoming 'migrants' anymore as they did a few decades ago. It's simply a lot more difficult to migrate and ask for asylum.
I guess you do sometimes have to walk in the shoes of an immigrant to actually understand ... what immigrants are going trough right now.
What I am trying to tell you here is that legality and illegality are nothing more but semantics, laws that can change from one day to the other. A legal migrant today, can be an illegal tomorow, citizen rights can be revoked, any privilige/right taken away. It's actually very simple. We have right now in our parliament people that would be very glad to remove my german papers. Imagine that.
I would have imagined that someone who's worried about ANY(!) kind of limitations on guns, would understand where I am coming from.
Except we're not talking about engineering or physics here, which is a whole different method compared to an argument. A simplification =/= oversimplification. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but your comparision is simply put a fallacy. It's that simple. Government policies are not comparable with individual actions, like building a fence around your lawn or what ever if you decide it's to risky to help homeless people/leting strangers in your home as argument to not help asylumseekers for example.
It's not a good way to start a debate like that. Or I could as well come and say, all gun owners are bad, because of the guy who shoot 50 people in Las Vegas beeing an 'example' of all gun owers. That would be not only stupid, it would be intellectually dishonest.
Are you trying to kink shame people in current year? so much for the tolerant left. it is now obvious we are dealing with extremely exceptional individuals with a penchant for Velcro shoes and anime.
Well I do understand your upper points, I argue against more government control most of the time, but in my comparison I was not trying to say that the homeless people are bad, or that we should not help them. Just there may be better ways to help them besides having them knocking on your door. I am also not arguing one bit about asylum seekers from wars, or tyrannical governments. My own family has fled those for a better life 3-4 generation ago. But numbers do come into play, only so many can be helped and integrated at once into any one country, as there are only so many resources to go around. I do believe that Germany is having some problems with having 1000000 people show up at once? Too many and it turns the tide of feeling toward helping them as they strain the resources of the country. As for a farmer walking off of his farm and walking a couple thousand kilometers to illegally enter another country, he is selfish, not an asylum seeker. Not only has he hurt the country he left by reducing food there, by reducing working people there, he is trying to skip the line of those who dutifully followed the law and applied legally to enter a country, waiting until the country accepted them, and playing off that he needed the help.
As for the simple argument, those are for simple minds, and sometimes the only way to explain a thought process to a simple mind. Weather you agree or disagree with it being a apt comparison that is a difference of opinion, and I could have used wild animals showing up to eat the food a farmer left out. First there is one and you are happy to help, but then there is 2, then 4, then 8, then there is a problem and you end up hurting those you wanted to help. Simple comparisons do still work in this and have been used throughout time to explain more complicated ideas. Many religious texts to story books and fairy tales all have the moral of the story, a simple comparison to explain a base concept that can be levelled up to societally levels. "Feed a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for life." Is a great example of a simple story explaining that it is better to teach someone to stand on there own then to constantly having to support him. So yes it does go beyond engineering and science and works at a philosophical level as well. So not a fallacy!
But that doesn't mean it's correct ... it just means you made sure a dumb person stays dumb. Anything regarding immigration, asylumseekers, refugees and border security simply put is a complex issue and will require complex solutions. What you're basically saying is that populism is a good thing. And even if it could be simplified we still have to consider, we're talking about people here and not cattle after all.
This kind of mindset that you show here, infuriates me as I always experience it when people try to tell me how I should do my job dealing with dificult children, that comited crimes and display very serious behaviour. Sorry. (Over)Simplfying the causes doesn't solve anything here. Because we're talking about people and behaviour which is a complex topic that requires complex solutions. That's simply the reality.
If we don't keep this in mind, we will always end up with solutions that are not only ineffective but can make the issue actually worse in the end.
I don't see why since if American Media has taught me anything is that danger lurks behind every rock and under every tree while at the same time male on male prison rape is the cap stone of American Comedy.
Populism = Democracy
Democracy < Liberty
Sorry buddy but when a popular opinion is accepted by a majority that is democracy, weather you agree or don't. You can get infuriated by simple arguments and call them not applicable but they can be used to convey ideas related to the topic, I am not using it to decide the entire argument but to convey an idea and build upon my argument, something you don't seem to understand. And just because it pisses you off does not make it any less true. I also like how you cut out the whole portion that explains that it has been and always will be used to explain complex ideas in a simple manner.
Yes immigration is a very complex topic, but that does not mean parts of it or conveying certain ideas surrounding it cannot be explain in simple ways. The kind of mindset you are showing now appears to be very close minded. you have pretty much just said "I don't like your argument so a reject it completely and ignore it" which does not mean my argument is any less valid. Sorry you could not come up with a sufficient debate when I can prove that simple arguments have and will be continued throughout time to explain things.
Not true. The founding fathers were very clear about protecting against the tyranny of the majority.
And that is why you don't live in a democracy, you live in a constitutional republic, with the electoral college to assure that the majority located in small portions of the republic don't trample all over the liberties of the whole country. You know how Trump got elected to begin with, and all those people in Cali, and New York plus Hillary bitched because the had the "majority". #Libertyforthewin
Pretty bad when a Canadian has to explain your country to you. #americaneducationfail
An indirect democracy is still a democracy, is it not?
Somewhat, it has controls aka electoral college and such for Americans. I guess I could have stated it better with populism = Direct democracy. But for those that were bitching about the Trump win because they had the majority, they seem to think that the US is a direct democracy, or that they are not populists (hahaha). In essence Trumps win was through the method to ensure that the majority don't trample on the liberties of the whole country. That would be why I had Democracy less than Liberty.
Also just to clarify, I am not a Trump supporter, I just would have chose him over the completely unlikable, fully corrupt, Democratic candidate who hated a good portion of the country and would have really fucked you guys (and the world) over. Trump is still a piece of shit and I have no idea why you Americans stick with the fully corrupt, utterly horrible 2 party system. It is really sad that you would not even give the libertarians half a look. They are the closest thing you guys have to a third party, and at least this time would have been better then either of the major options which could not have been any worse for you, those throughout the world you help, and your relations with the world.
I'm not angry because Trump won using the electoral college. I mean, I am, but it's not why I don't think he's a legitimate president. I think that because it's looking increasingly likely that Russia meddled in the election on Trump's behalf.
But that does not make him illegitimate, it only would if it was at Trumps request and he willingly colluded with them. Nobody I know of argues about the Russian meddling, nor are you Americans innocent at all yourselves for meddling in other countries (even Russian) elections. Even if he knew it was happening but did not directly support it you would have a very hard time proving he is illegitimate. The Mueller investigation has been ongoing for 2 years now, and although he bitches about it, Trump has not interfered in it, and all that has come from it is some financial charges. Hell you have a better chance of kicking him out for breaking campaign finance laws because he slept with a porn star or two, and good luck with that, you couldn't even impeach the rapist/sexual deviant that you wanted to bring back to the white house as first man (like really are the dems really that fucking dumb?).