tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post3995233065658293195..comments2024-03-28T00:32:20.743-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: De-Criminalize Seeking SafetyDan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-42914131071066081532017-08-14T05:52:49.719-07:002017-08-14T05:52:49.719-07:00Craig keeps commenting with stuff other than the a...Craig keeps commenting with stuff other than the answers to the questions I requested he post. He has now taken to calling it cowardly that I expect him to answer the questions asked of him.<br /><br />I will be closing this post, since no one is offering much in the way of constructive ideas. If you have something helpful to add, by all means, email me and I'll be glad to include it.<br /><br />~DanDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-79687285022205826652017-08-13T19:09:34.864-07:002017-08-13T19:09:34.864-07:00you damn well know what is meant by the term "...<i>you damn well know what is meant by the term "illegal immigrant", but you purposely and intentionally choose to play semantic games by saying "there's no such thing".</i><br /><br />I know damn well what it means when a fucking racist calls a black man "boy" or "nigger," to, but I won't abide by such epithets.<br /><br />They are harmful, they destroy, the are stupid as sin and I won't abide them any longer.<br /><br />Do you know damn well what I mean, now?<br /><br />Don't bother responding to this until you've responded to the other two questions.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-20446948280403216902017-08-13T19:07:53.249-07:002017-08-13T19:07:53.249-07:00Craig isn't making the claim that "immigr...<i>Craig isn't making the claim that "immigrants seeking refuge from harm" are causing harm. He's saying that YOU claimed "immigrants" don't cause harm</i><br /><br />I know exactly what he said. What exactly I said was this:<br /><br />I HAVE ZERO DATA TO ASSUME THAT THOSE SEEKING REFUGE FROM HARM CAUSE HARM.<br /><br />That is a truth fact. I don't have anything to suggest to me that these refugees cause harm. I don't.<br /><br />1. Now, repeat back to me what I have said. <br />2. Then, once you have done that, tell me what is wrong with Craig's ridiculous charges.<br /><br />Two assignments for you, Marshall. Please comply or cease commenting. Anything besides these two responses will be deleted, just to keep you on task.<br /><br />To help things out, though, let me offer an illustration.<br /><br />I initially said that "Immigrants cause no harm." That is a fact claim. I THEN clarified it to, "I have no data that suggests immigrants/refugees cause harm," to make it more clear.<br /><br />Now, this is something adult rational thinkers do. For instance, I might say, "There is NO such thing as purple unicorns in the natural world." Now, that is a fact claim, but to be precise, it is a reality claim saying, "I have no data to support the rather ridiculous sounding claim that purple unicorns exist." Sometimes, when something is so ludicrous and unbelievable on the face of it, people say, "It don't exist," rather than the more precise, "I have no data..."<br /><br />Do you understand that now, with this analogy? <br /><br />DanDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-59165348628570009072017-08-13T15:05:19.016-07:002017-08-13T15:05:19.016-07:00Now you're just lying again, Dan. Craig isn&#...Now you're just lying again, Dan. Craig isn't making the claim that "immigrants seeking refuge from harm" are causing harm. He's saying that YOU claimed "immigrants" don't cause harm. He can correct and clarify if I'm being too broad in my representation of his position, but at the same time, you're purposely and deceivingly choosing to narrow the request in order to protect your position. It's not uncommon and goes to the charge of arguing in bad faith. If you wish to defend a position, doing so in good faith means you must deal in what is actually said by those with whom you are engaged. <br /><br />For example, you damn well know what is meant by the term "illegal immigrant", but you purposely and intentionally choose to play semantic games by saying "there's no such thing". You do it again in this last comment of yours by suggesting that Craig is saying "immigrants, <i>by nature of being immigrants</i> and <i>seeking refuge, jobs and safety</i>, somehow cause harm". <b>NOBODY</b> who supports enforcing or strengthening existing immigration laws is making that claim and you damn well know it.<br /><br /><i>"Harm, Marshall. They're causing harm and moral, rational people nearly universally recognize causing harm to be bad."</i><br /><br />Harm's a factor in your philosophy, Dan, but not in the philosophy of those who think they are entitled to whatever they want. What makes your opinion "self-evident" and their opinion less so? As we are all stained with a sin nature, as well as a self-preservation instinct, it could be argued that it is "self-evident" that whatever one feels one should have one is entitled to have by whatever means. You do realize that for you to deny such people is seen by them as causing them harm, don't you?<br /><br />You also must realize that whoever is a burden to others, even if not as a matter of conscious choice, is causing harm to those who must bear that burden on their behalf, don't you? It may be a degree of harm you personally don't find problematic, but it is harm nonetheless. Basing your philosophy on harm over God's will is just more posturing.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-1757535743297162552017-08-13T10:51:17.003-07:002017-08-13T10:51:17.003-07:00we're back to square one. If immigrants or rel...<i>we're back to square one. If immigrants or relaxed immigration standards cause harm, then you would feel differently. Yet you won't prove your claim that immigrants cause zero harm. </i><br /><br />Indeed, back to zero. IF you want to provide data that says immigrants, by nature of being immigrants and seeking refuge, jobs and safety, somehow cause harm, then provide it.<br /><br />Until you do so, I have NO REASON, I have ZERO DATA to suggest that there is harm caused by people seeking safety.<br /><br />You can no longer comment on this thread, Craig, until such time as you support that claim.<br /><br />And I know, you're "not making that claim," but you sure are arguing for it, for someone who is not making it.<br /><br />I tell you, "I have no data to support a wild ass hunch that people seeking security somehow cause harm by that seeking of security," and you respond with, "prove it." WHY do you want me to prove that which I <i>just said</i> I have no data to raise doubt? Is it because YOU suspect harm is caused? Why else raise the question?<br /><br />You are being unnecessarily argumentative and it's tiring Craig.<br /><br />You can do one of three things:<br /><br />1. Say, "Here is the data that says immigrants seeking refuge causes harm," and provide actual data.<br /><br />2. Say, "I'm not making that argument, I am sorry if it seemed that way. Indeed, we don't have <i>any data</i> that I know of to make that argument, it is a specious, stupid and possibly racist argument to make, lacking any data whatsoever, and I don't have that data and doubt that anyone does..."<br /><br />or<br /><br />3. Go away, you're finished here.<br /><br />Nothing else, Craig, one of those three responses. Anything else will be deleted as specious and argumentative in a nonsensical manner.<br /><br />And no, you have not provided any data. You are mistaken. Whatever you THINK you provided was clearly not data. Perhaps you should do some research on the matter.<br /><br />In fact, you appear to have SAID that you have no data. YOU said, "I've never actually made any specific claims of harm, only asked that you support your claims."<br /><br />If you provided data that supported claims of harm, wouldn't you have been making that argument?<br /><br />ALL I can find that you've said is this, "I also don't see how you can continue to insist that immigrants bring zero harm, while there is ample evidence from Europe that suggests otherwise." <br /><br />That isn't data. It's an empty claim. Do you understand the difference?<br /><br />No need to answer that. You just have to support the claim or admit there is not reasonable data to support it and that you're just playing devil's advocate.<br /><br />~DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-52856596659031182152017-08-13T08:05:12.588-07:002017-08-13T08:05:12.588-07:00And we're back to square one. If immigrants ...And we're back to square one. If immigrants or relaxed immigration standards cause harm, then you would feel differently. Yet you won't prove your claim that immigrants cause zero harm. <br /><br />How convenient. <br /><br />I know the concept of your providing proof for claims you make is either confusing or problematic for you, but it's how life works. So, we're waiting for you to prove your claims. <br /><br />Oh, before you even start, I've already brought up some data that argues against your claim. <br /><br />Please prove your claim or retract it. Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-70230988857703834612017-08-13T05:48:39.275-07:002017-08-13T05:48:39.275-07:00Harm, Marshall. They're causing harm and moral...Harm, Marshall. They're causing harm and moral, rational people nearly universally recognize causing harm to be bad.<br /><br />What is surprising is when you find Christians appearing to support it.<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-26947769089876286622017-08-13T05:10:34.380-07:002017-08-13T05:10:34.380-07:00Thanks Dan, I guess that means that proof of your ...Thanks Dan, I guess that means that proof of your claims is not forthcoming. If you can't be bothered to prove, or at least provide some data to support your claims, then stop being surprised at how we react. Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-5637901023418479482017-08-13T04:22:05.580-07:002017-08-13T04:22:05.580-07:00"Look, I think it is self-evident and obvious...<i>"Look, I think it is self-evident and obvious that we shouldn't be selfish or cowardly, that we should open our doors to those in need."</i><br /><br />There are others that believe it is "self-evident and obvious" that should we possess the ability, desire and stones that we should take what we want whenever we want it and from anywhere we find it and too bad for those from whom we take it. Why are they wrong and you're not?<br /><br />Just wondering.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-68718197422139740342017-08-12T23:39:15.407-07:002017-08-12T23:39:15.407-07:00Look, I think it is self-evident and obvious that ...Look, I think it is self-evident and obvious that we shouldn't be selfish or cowardly, that we should open our doors to those in need. This is my opinion, one that I learned in traditional Christian churches. If you think this is a bad idea, you are welcome to your opinion.<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-58521785715747184402017-08-12T22:20:36.445-07:002017-08-12T22:20:36.445-07:00I guess it depends on how many books I write.
...I guess it depends on how many books I write. <br /><br />Look you're the one claiming that these "Truths" come from God. That the words used are in fact quotes from God. It just seems reasonable that if you make s claim you should be able to demonstrate that the claim is accurate. <br /><br />The difference is that I haven't made any claims about God prouncimg any "Truths" about immigration or US immigration law, therefore I have no claim to prove. <br /><br />I think this whole "proving your claims" thing confuses you. The fact that you expect me to prove a claim that I didn't make, while being unwilling to prove the claims you've made certainly indicates some level of confusion about how this works. <br /><br />But if you'd rather bitch about some Persian dude from thousands of years ago, instead of demonstrating the Truth of your claims, go right ahead. <br /><br />But the more claims you won't/can't prove, the less intellectually honest you appear<br /><br />FYI, it's not about proving " should" we "do this", it's about proving that your claims are True, and that the other proof texts that don't support your hunch are not True. . Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-28110738291932317342017-08-12T21:05:54.836-07:002017-08-12T21:05:54.836-07:00I'm sorry I can't find the words to help y...I'm sorry I can't find the words to help you understand my actual positions better.<br /><br />And really, after 1,000 years, Rumi is STILL selling hundreds of thousands of books each year and you don't think that's hugely popular?<br /><br />How many books do you reckon you'll be selling 1,000 years from now?<br /><br />As to the "objective, knowable Truth," I've already pointed out that neither you nor I can know objectively what God's will is in any demonstrable way. Nonetheless, I don't think it's that hard of a stretch to be able to figure out many important things... ideas like do unto others as you'd have them do unto you is reasonable and understandable and what we ought to do, NOT because we find those words in the Bible, but because they make sense. They're reasonable.<br /><br />Can you or I prove "objectively" we should do this? I don't know how, you certainly have never said how. But that I can't say objectively "Yes, do unto others..." doesn't mean that I can't make a reasonable case for it that many if not mosts rational adults can agree with. <br /><br />Do you have "proof" that your hunches on limiting immigration are what God wants?<br /><br />I didn't think so.<br /><br />~DanDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-85524178668747798262017-08-12T16:46:38.380-07:002017-08-12T16:46:38.380-07:001. He's random in the sense that he has no di...1. He's random in the sense that he has no direct bearing on this conversation, and if he only sells 365,000 book a year, he's hardly hugely popular. <br /><br />2. So, you really don't believe God said any of the things you proof texted, you just want to use scripture as a club against people who you perceive disagree with your opinion on immigration. As if it's not possible to acknowledge and agree with the scriptures in context, but disagree with your political agenda. Of course, your obsession with gay sex comes out once again. I already pointed out the two problems with your selective proof texting on this issue, please feel free to ignore them. <br /><br />3. That's just incoherent. In context, God is establishing laws (issuing commands) to the Israelite nation. In this case God IS the power, the ruler, the king and is speaking law to His subjects. Since you reject the notion of "rules", and you're quick to write off other commands as being location/people specific, your embrace of these as imperatives is suspect at best. You have no objective logical basis to declare these commands as "Truth", and binding on all people at all times. Again, I point out the ones from your proof text link that you ignore, because they don't support your premise. <br /><br />Really, I've repeatedly asked you for examples of objective, knowable Truth and don't recall you being able to provide any, perhaps I just forgot. Maybe you can name one objective, knowable Truth to jog my memory. <br /><br />By all means feel free to demonstrate why these few proof texts are "Truth", while the others are not. <br /><br />I'm sure I'll see that proof right after you produce the US criminal code section that criminalizes "seeking safety".<br /><br />Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-87550923146020351162017-08-12T14:21:57.528-07:002017-08-12T14:21:57.528-07:001. Just as an educational moment: Rumi is hardly &...1. Just as an educational moment: Rumi is hardly "some random Persian sage." He is known and beloved by people of all and no religions the world around. He is the best selling poet in the US. He sells about 365,000 copies of his book each year, I hear. Just fyi.<br /><br />2. I cite the Bible in the same way I cite Rumi, because of the truths I read there. As I said. <br /><br />BUT, there is an additional reason to cite the Bible that no doubt crosses my mind. In cases like this, where conservative Christians are perhaps some of the most opposed to welcoming immigrants in the sense I'm speaking of (just a guess, based on conservative values) AND where those same conservative Christians DO tend to take the Bible literally... it's a reminder that the Bible and God directly has a hella lot more to say about how we treat immigrants than it does about opposing gay guys getting married (that number being Zero).<br /><br />3. Thus, again, it's not that I'm quoting God because finding a quote attributed to God makes an idea more palatable/worthy (there are those who attribute to God commands to kill babies, for instance), but because the quote itself is speaking truth to power and is noteworthy for what it's saying. <br /><br />As with most things, your opinions/interpretations of my "previous stance" on Truth is most likely incorrect.<br /><br />~DanDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-59123851182628115622017-08-12T12:55:16.426-07:002017-08-12T12:55:16.426-07:00For that's your story, who am I to question it...For that's your story, who am I to question it. Of course, there's the whole picking and choosing to directly attribute to God a only those things you agree with. Of course, you didn't choose to quote some obscure Persian sage, you chose to quote God. Clearly having God underpinning your screed carries much more theoretical weight than some random Persian sage. <br /><br />If you repeat this often enough maybe you'll eventually become convincing. <br /><br />Too bad your previous takes on the OT undermine your claims. <br /><br />Also your previous stance on the existence and knowability of Truth also undermines your point. Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-33415495550548410932017-08-12T10:20:42.741-07:002017-08-12T10:20:42.741-07:00Sigh. I quote ancient Persian sage, Rumi all the t...Sigh. I quote ancient Persian sage, Rumi all the time. Does that mean that I want to implement Muslim Sharia law? <br /><br />No, it means I respect the truth he shared. But the point is: the Truth is true NOT because of the source. It's true because it's true.<br /><br />Many OT writers passed on great Truths, some that remain quite valid and powerful. But it's not because the Bible tells me so. It's true because it's true. Life and wisdom testify to the truth.<br /><br />Know it, and be set free.<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-63516118248645156852017-08-12T09:30:35.606-07:002017-08-12T09:30:35.606-07:00I clicked on the proof text link and to my surpris...I clicked on the proof text link and to my surprise I figured out why there are no NT proof texts in this post. Maybe it's because most of them say that believers are called to respect and obey the government. Of course the fact that none of them specifically mention immigration is another. <br /><br />I guess the selective proof texts might lead one to draw certain conclusions about the point of using them. <br /><br />Clearly it's not designed that give God's imprimatur to the screed that follows. <br /><br />I also note the fact that theses particular proof texts are attributed to "God", in this post while other statements in the OT would elicit ridicule if attributed to "God". It's also unusual that all of a sudden we start seeing the term God capitalized, which is not always.the case. <br /><br />It's just convenient that all of a sudden God (in the flawed and ahistorical OT) has spoken directly and authoritatively on this one particular subject. <br /><br />I know, it's just a coincidence and isn't really meant to suggest that God has an opinion on US immigration law, it's just convenient when God's clear and unambiguous teachings just happen to line up ones political views. Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-3040016673119773862017-08-11T15:44:36.748-07:002017-08-11T15:44:36.748-07:00Craig pretty much nails it with his last comment.
...Craig pretty much nails it with his last comment.<br /><br />Dan, on the other hand, speaks in very specious generalities designed to support his position, more than enlighten or expose any real truth...at least not as regards our objections and need for clarifications.<br /><br />Impeding the ability of the suffering to escape their suffering is not immoral if what is impeding them is moral...or morally neutral. <br /><br />Dan would have us believe that the moral justifications for immigration regulations...that of protecting the citizens of this country...are necessarily immoral if by doing what they were designed to do they at the same time do not provide for those who are not citizens. This is absurd to a degree we rarely see outside of Dan's fantasy world. It's very much the same crap we hear when people like Dan speak of economic inequality...as if our capitalist economic system intends to leave some people impoverished.<br /><br />And while he never speaks of the issue before the point of having determined the plea for sanctuary is justified, at no point does he discuss just how he, or the nation, is to confirm that the plea is legitimate and not just a ruse to enter the country to take advantage of our opportunities, the fruits of which are sent home to other family, friend or whatever. I've on doubt the United States can provide a better life, even far better, for even those who are not facing real deprivation or direct oppression. <br /><br />At the same time, I've just as little doubt that despite our best efforts to appease the undefined proposals of the Dans of the world, there will still be those who are legitimate victims/targets of physical/economic dangers who will not be helped, or worse, still not seen as legitimate victims in need of sanctuary. Will that mean Dan's suggestions for improvements nonetheless leave our policies to remain as evil? Nothing Dan has written so much as hints that he's really thought this through beyond what it means for his own self-image.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-13300265065249373532017-08-11T13:08:25.153-07:002017-08-11T13:08:25.153-07:00Yes, you've repeated that many times. What y...Yes, you've repeated that many times. What you haven't done is demonstrated how the curt system impedes what you claim to want. <br /><br />There is a process that provides restrictions on the mechanics of the process, while removing the imminent threat during the process. <br /><br />There is grant latitude in the granting of asylum in this country especially when there is evidence of persecution. <br /><br />Clearly when it comes to food/water the best and most permanent answer does not lie in allowing unlimited immigration, but in continuing the amazing strides being made in minimizing hunger throughout the world. <br /><br />One problem with this is the high concentration of these negative outcomes in a small number of Muslim nations who won't allow relief efforts to come in, nor their people to leave. <br /><br />As far as you trying to personalize this, my answer remains the same. I would exhaust all available legal means to alleviate the situation before I would consider crime. <br /><br />Again, absolutely no one is blocking any one from "seeking security", they are enforcing restrictions on the process but this notion of arbitrary blocking is fallacious. Is it possible that some people, after exhausting the process, are not given the outcome they would prefer, sure, but who always gets everything they want. Are they exposed to danger during the process,no. Doesn't that solve the immidiate problem, yes. <br /><br />Are there changes that could be made, sure. Do any of those involve unrestricted access to permanent residency, no they shouldn't. <br /><br />Ultimately your problem is lack of specificity. You want change, but don't define it. You rail against injustice but don't explain what you consider justice. You try to manipulate emotion, without reference to fact. You make claims, yet don't provide the data to support them. <br /><br />It's not what you say that's not understandable, it's the vast amour that you don't say where the problems arise. <br /><br />But continue to blame if you like. Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-76012916363372026852017-08-11T12:41:30.062-07:002017-08-11T12:41:30.062-07:00My point/position: if a person is in danger - eith...My point/position: if a person is in danger - either through direct and imminent threat or vague, general, but serious threat at location 1, but can be safe by moving 5 miles north, it is rational and moral for him to move and immoral and irrational to oppose that move. Imaginary national border lines be damned.<br /><br />Do you understand?<br /><br />I am fine with REGULATIONS involving that move, but any effort to block the move is immoral and should be opposed.<br /><br />If it were you and your loved ones under threat, would you seriously not agree?<br /><br />Further, if we change the threat from one of physical violence to food/water insecurity, my position remains the same.<br /><br />Again, if it were YOUR child who went to bed hungry night after night, are you suggesting you'd support people blocking your access to a better life for your kids?<br /><br />I don't know how to be any more clear. If you don't understand or still support us blocking people from merely seeking security and don't see the immorality of that position, well, Lord have mercy on you.<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-57858806288260956372017-08-11T11:02:24.283-07:002017-08-11T11:02:24.283-07:00Indeed. The whole idea of regulating immigration ...Indeed. The whole idea of regulating immigration is to impede harm. Yet, anyone who is so impeded, for whatever reason given, would insist they are at risk somehow. For some, it could be truly horrible danger, while for others it only means having to go back home to continue in one's meager existence. While unfortunate in both cases, if those cases haven't been made to satisfy the criteria for entry, that doesn't mean the law and criteria for satisfying the law are in any way immoral. <br /><br />As such, I would again ask, on what basis is the law immoral exactly? How is not being convinced of one's plea immoral? What is the limit of our welcome given how many claim to be fleeing harm, either due to war, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution or just economic hardship? At what point is our welcoming attitude ever to be considered harm and hardship to our own people? <br /><br />I recall one former visitor to these blogs, Geoffrey Kruse-Safford (sp), who once supported absolutely no borders at all, with foreigners free to come and go as they please as if we are one big happy. While I won't go so far as to claim Dan agrees with this idiocy, especially given what has been said here, the concerns raised above have yet to be resolved in this discussion in any way. I'm speaking here specifically about the alleged "immorality" of our immigration policy. I would expect a wholesale recantation of this notion or some specific support for it.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-81147793526253931142017-08-11T10:42:52.595-07:002017-08-11T10:42:52.595-07:00It's strange, I have no problem understanding ...It's strange, I have no problem understanding you and the fact that you think I should ask some random liberal to explain what you mean is truly nonsensical to me. <br /><br />Although the harm claim is s great example. You have been quite clear in claiming that immigrants do zero harm to the US. In most rational conversations the onus would be on the person who makes the claim to be able to demonstrate the accuracy of the claim. But not here, I've never actually made any specific claims of harm, only asked that you support your claims. Yet somehow you've decided that I need to support a claim I haven't made, as well as that you are exempt from supporting the claims you've made. <br /><br />As to the "innocent until proven guilty" non sequeter, that has nothing to do with proving harm. <br /><br />So if it is helpful for you to absolve yourself of any responsibility to prove your claims or to explain your positions feel free. But the constant blaming of others just gets old. <br /><br />Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-19797429616205077962017-08-11T10:08:59.812-07:002017-08-11T10:08:59.812-07:00Case in point.
Craig, in spite of what you THINK...Case in point. <br /><br />Craig, in spite of what you THINK I'm saying, I'm suggesting you ask a liberal friend to read and explain what I'm actually saying because WE (IE, you and I) have not been able to communicate successfully. You keep reading meaning into my words that I have not said. I'm not blaming you, I'm just saying WE have not been able to communicate. In my experience, liberals who've read my words have not had the difficulty understanding my meaning that you all have. Thus, my suggestion that you ask a friend to give it a try. <br /><br />Or, if we ever meet in person, I'm more confident that understanding would be easier.<br /><br />To the "harm" question, in our nation, we believe in the notion of innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on you to support a claim of harm (if that is what you believe). But we've had this conversation.<br /><br />If you're ever in Louisville, look me up.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-33381521697136205772017-08-11T09:33:57.501-07:002017-08-11T09:33:57.501-07:00Of course doing so has several benefits for you. ...Of course doing so has several benefits for you. <br /><br />1. It allows you to continue to believe that everything is our fault, that we just aren't quite sharp enough to get your pontificating. <br />2. It allows you to pretend that we don't answer your questions, even though I have answered all of your recent "clarifying" questions. <br />3. It allows you to avoid providing proof for your zero harm claim. <br />4. It allows you to ignore what I actually wrote, in favor of what you think I wrote. <br /><br />All things considered, that's a win for you. Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-81898766288078417462017-08-11T09:01:05.037-07:002017-08-11T09:01:05.037-07:00The problem I'm having in communicating with y...The problem I'm having in communicating with you gentlemen is that with each comment I make, you all respond with a misunderstanding or misstatement or two of what I've said. So, I ask clarifying questions which are ignored or met with yet another misunderstanding or two which I try to clarify, and yet, not forgetting the first one or two that still need to be corrected, and the misstatements and misunderstandings just keep piling up til the communication is a big muddled mass of words.<br /><br />I have never said that I'm opposed to helping foreign nations have more stable economies. Of course, I'm not.<br /><br />I've never said that immigration and the stability of other nations are unrelated topics. Of course they are.<br /><br />Nonetheless, one can talk about one without touching on the other, in a given reflection, just as one can talk about drug addiction without talking about the related topic of criminal code.<br /><br />I'm giving up, at least for now, helping you understand my points.<br /><br />And so it goes.<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com