How Does Morality Change?

[Out-Of-Phase]

President Trump.

Interesting point of view from a Canadian.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/donald-trump-left-1.4989948

 

[KEW]

Herbu, I am going to take your points one at a time in the hope that it will be easier to stay on track. Your response makes some rather odd (to me as a "non-supporter" of Trump) assumptions about what is being thought by the left!

Thanks, Kurt.
1. Trump redefined the wall as immoral? So you support an action because of reasons A, B & C. But if somebody you don't like adds a "reason D" with which you disagree, you withdraw support for the action?

Yes! Why you do something can be as relevant as what you are doing. Trump introduced the wall as a symbol of racist bigotry.
Let me give you an example you might better comprehend. Over the millennia, kneeling before something or someone has always been an ultimate display of respect. Trump introduced it as a display of disrespect and now it is considered inappropriate before the flag by many.
Do you get it?

But you are mistaken to say we ever supported "the wall" even without the racist aspect, I (and I suspect many Republicans) did not support the wall as Trump originally defined it - a metal reinforced concrete wall extending the full length of the border. It would be tremendously more expensive and was hard to see any advantage it would offer over the Bollard fencing which has been used to good effect by previous administrations. If Mexico was paying for it, making it expensive isn't really our concern, but if the citizens of the US are paying for it (directly or indirectly),it would be an atrocious waste of money.

As of now, Trump is being extremely ambiguous! Sometime he talks about the wall that is in the same terms as the Bollard fencing of previous administrations, but the next day he will, once again, be tweeting about a concrete wall.

If he was consistent so you and I knew exactly what his final intent is, it would be useful, but he doesn't really care - he agreed to no wall before Rush and Coulter criticized him!

 

[KEW]

2. Neither the president nor Joe Republican believes all illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers. But you cannot deny that some of them are. What happened to the favorite Dem mantra that, "If only one life is saved..."? I could show you Homeland or FBI numbers about the thousands of violent crimes committed by illegals every year, but it would do no good. You would respond with other numbers to dispute. I'm not gonna get in a debate over whose numbers are right. But saying that Trump or his supporters believe all illegals are violent criminals is pretty ridiculous. (They ARE all criminals by definition.)

You are doing a pretty good job of diffusing Trump's comments, but here is his quote:

“They are not our friend, believe me”
“They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

He doesn't say some are rapists, he says they are rapists!
He does say some are good people, (but even that requires assumption)!

So you can talk about numbers being vague, but the reality is this is a racist departure from reality!
...but you don't have to believe me because Trump is pretty obvious about it when he declares (of undocumented immigrants):

"These aren't people. These are animals"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/16/trump-immigrants-animals-mexico-democrats-sanctuary-cities/617252002/

 

[KEW]

3. $5B isn't even in the ballpark for a 2k mile wall. Of course the intent/plan is to do the high traffic areas, then expand or evolve as necessary. You're telling me all the rancor is because Trump didn't ask nicely? I don't think so. And of course Republicans want a multi-faceted approach to border security. One that includes a wall where appropriate.

Your first sentence has nothing to do with our discussion that I can see!
But no, it is not because he didn't ask nicely, it is because he was asking for something different than what had been done before!

This is redundant so I'll keep it short:
1) Trump has presented his wall as a racist artifact.
2) Trump is currently vague, but in the past (and especially initially) it was described as a 30 foot tall wall made of reinforced concrete covering the entire border. Some of his earliest words were "I am going to build a great , great wall". He is the one who distanced his wall from past fencing. If he said "I want to add more Bollard fencing", that is what has been easily approved in the past by Dem's and Rep's! This is a simple matter of intelligent use of funds!

Let's keep things honest! You say the Republican party wants wall "where appropriate", but that is not what the official Republican platform said:

The border wall must cover the entirety of the southern border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Link - https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
(see second paragraph on page 26)

 

[KEW]

If separating an illegal alien family for processing is immoral, where was the outrage when Clinton passed the law? Where was the outrage when Obama enforced it for many thousands of families more than Trump? (You do know the initial pictures of kids in cages under space blankets were from Obama's time, not Trump's... right?)

It takes some effort, but watching actual news instead of buying into emails and opinion pieces will do much to keep you in facts instead of embarrassing misinformation!

Sessions announced the "Zero Tolerance" policy on immigrants. Here you go from FOX (actual newscast, not Hannity):

It wasn't new laws, but a decision to instigate a zero tolerance enforcement policy that created this nightmare. The law never required separation of children from parents. It was a conscious decision by the Trump administration to do this and that is clear if you watch the newscast!

The photos of kids being held during the Obama administration are of unaccompanied minors who crossed the border without parents. They were not separated from their parents by the US Government! There was an influx of unaccompanied minors in 2014.

If a wall is immoral, where was the outrage when virtually every Democrat politician voted for it? All of the reasons Dems explained for supporting a wall still exist, and with rapidly increasing magnitude. I still cannot find any logic in what looks like a complete reversal of morals from the Dem party. Well, no logic except for pure politics. That doesn't surprise me. But the level of hate and vitriol, ("Bitterly abusive feeling or expression"),from smart and good people, continues to bewilder me.

This is a repeat of your point #1, but:
Dem's never voted for anything like Trumps Wall.
Trump introduced the Wall as bigger and better (and more beautiful) than what had been before. It was not Bollard fencing!
Now he sometimes tries to argue that it is the same thing as the Bollard fencing that was approved in the past (but still saying it is concrete and a wall in other circumstances). His ambiguity does not help!

 

[mtrycrafts]

It takes some effort, but watching actual news instead of buying into emails and opinion pieces will do much to keep you in facts instead of embarrassing misinformation!

...

What, facts getting in the way of opinions, again? Bah, humbug

 

[herbu]

Herbu, I am going to take your points one at a time in the hope that it will be easier to stay on track. Your response makes some rather odd (to me as a "non-supporter" of Trump) assumptions about what is being thought by the left!

Oh my. Thanks, Kurt. Lots of response, but don't have time now. Later. I promise.

 

[herbu]

Trump introduced the wall as a symbol of racist bigotry.
Let me give you an example you might better comprehend. Over the millennia, kneeling before something or someone has always been an ultimate display of respect. Trump introduced it as a display of disrespect and now it is considered inappropriate before the flag by many.
Do you get it?

I don't think Trump introduced the wall as a symbol of racist bigotry. I think the Left characterized it as such, but I don't think for a second that's what he meant or thought. I know that is not the thought of conservatives I know that support him. Can you believe me when I say that is not my feeling, or the feeling of anyone I know?

Do you really believe kneeling for the National Anthem is intended as a sign of respect? While it has been such for royalty, it has never been the case for our National Anthem. Convention has always been to stand as the sign of respect for the anthem. Your analogy seems a pretty far fetched comparison. Frankly, I don't believe you really find it appropriate in this case.

I believe Trump's description of the wall was/is simply rhetoric used to mean an impenetrable barrier. I don't think he cares how it's made or what it's made of, as long as it's effective. Again, every conservative I know doesn't care whether it's concrete, iron, wire or anything else. It should be an effective barrier to slow ingress enough to give Border Patrol agents time to arrive and stop or apprehend violators. That's why I laugh when I hear the Left make distinctions between a "wall" and a "fence". We don't care. Really. No argument or disagreement here.

It is the same for "the full length of the border". While that may be ideal, it is not practical or necessary. Trump knows that, but he also knows that starting with more than you want is the best strategy for any negotiation. He has already dropped to $5-6B. A full wall would likely be more than 10X that. How has the Left moved to meet him in the middle? If concrete is the issue, why don't Pelosi/Schumer counter with a fence proposal they will support? If the full border is the issue, why don't they counter with areas they will support?

So far, we have no issues that can't be reconciled. More to your other replies later. And again, thanks. Nice civil discussion.

 

[Hetfield]

I don't think Trump introduced the wall as a symbol of racist bigotry. I think the Left characterized it as such, but I don't think for a second that's what he meant or thought. I know that is not the thought of conservatives I know that support him. Can you believe me when I say that is not my feeling, or the feeling of anyone I know?

Do you really believe kneeling for the National Anthem is intended as a sign of respect? While it has been such for royalty, it has never been the case for our National Anthem. Convention has always been to stand as the sign of respect for the anthem. Your analogy seems a pretty far fetched comparison. Frankly, I don't believe you really find it appropriate in this case.

I believe Trump's description of the wall was/is simply rhetoric used to mean an impenetrable barrier. I don't think he cares how it's made or what it's made of, as long as it's effective. Again, every conservative I know doesn't care whether it's concrete, iron, wire or anything else. It should be an effective barrier to slow ingress enough to give Border Patrol agents time to arrive and stop or apprehend violators. That's why I laugh when I hear the Left make distinctions between a "wall" and a "fence". We don't care. Really. No argument or disagreement here.

It is the same for "the full length of the border". While that may be ideal, it is not practical or necessary. Trump knows that, but he also knows that starting with more than you want is the best strategy for any negotiation. He has already dropped to $5-6B. A full wall would likely be more than 10X that. How has the Left moved to meet him in the middle? If concrete is the issue, why don't Pelosi/Schumer counter with a fence proposal they will support? If the full border is the issue, why don't they counter with areas they will support?

So far, we have no issues that can't be reconciled. More to your other replies later. And again, thanks. Nice civil discussion.

Of course you don't think it was a racist symbol. He said they are rapist, they are bringing crime, they are bringing drugs and I guess some are good people. What the F do you call that? He is making out that they are garbage but he a few might be good. Your racist radar didn't go off with that statement? He is racist period or he is playing his supporters for fools throwing out red meat to win. Me thinks he is piece of garbage either way.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[herbu]

You are doing a pretty good job of diffusing Trump's comments, but here is his quote:

He doesn't say some are rapists, he says they are rapists!
He does say some are good people, (but even that requires assumption)!

So you can talk about numbers being vague, but the reality is this is a racist departure from reality!
...but you don't have to believe me because Trump is pretty obvious about it when he declares (of undocumented immigrants):

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/16/trump-immigrants-animals-mexico-democrats-sanctuary-cities/617252002/

"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They are rapists." OK, I'll give you that one of his speech writers would have chosen different words. Using generalities is often not technically accurate. But I think his sentiment is true, though poorly worded. You cannot deny that some illegals bring drugs and crime. And it is fact that some are rapists, child molesters and human traffickers. But you're right. it was very poorly worded. So if he had said, "Some bring crime, some bring drugs, and some are rapists", the Left would be in full agreement... and shouting, "Build the wall because if it saves only one life...".

And you know his comment about "animals" was talking about MS13. Right? It was right after some particularly heinous murders with machetes, and a story explaining how that is the preferred method of intimidation by MS13. A few quick searches will show you some of what he saw. Funny that USA Today seems to have edited out that part. It is an example of why I don't trust much of the mainstream media, and I think why many rational people believe things that are not true.

 

[herbu]

Let's keep things honest! You say the Republican party wants wall "where appropriate", but that is not what the official Republican platform said:

OK. So that was the initial Republican proposal. What is the Democrat counter? Where is the negotiation?

 

[Hetfield]

"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They are rapists." OK, I'll give you that one of his speech writers would have chosen different words. Using generalities is often not technically accurate. But I think his sentiment is true, though poorly worded. You cannot deny that some illegals bring drugs and crime. And it is fact that some are rapists, child molesters and human traffickers. But you're right. it was very poorly worded. So if he had said, "Some bring crime, some bring drugs, and some are rapists", the Left would be in full agreement... and shouting, "Build the wall because if it saves only one life...".

And you know his comment about "animals" was talking about MS13. Right? It was right after some particularly heinous murders with machetes, and a story explaining how that is the preferred method of intimidation by MS13. A few quick searches will show you some of what he saw. Funny that USA Today seems to have edited out that part. It is an example of why I don't trust much of the mainstream media, and I think why many rational people believe things that are not true.

You do realize when you frame things the way that racist piece of garbage does you can make any group look bad right? He is racist, period. You think a speech writer wrote that? Then you are as dumb as he is, that was from him. Whipping people up in a frenzy on any one group of people is wrong. Then again this is a piece of garbage that said there were fine people on both sides, those protesting neo Nazis and the neo Nazis themselves and don't give me the BS he was talking about people protesting statues coming down. That was a BS cover story. He gave aid and comfort to lunatic Neo Nazis and racists all over the country with that one.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Hetfield]

OK. So that was the initial Republican proposal. What is the Democrat counter? Where is the negotiation?

Can you get this through your thick skull? Can you? The negotiation was done between the Democrats and Republicans based on what the White House said they would sign. Then Ann Coulter and Rush insulted him and he backed out of what was agreed upon. You cannot give in to demands this way. That is why the whole thing went sideways.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[herbu]

It takes some effort, but watching actual news instead of buying into emails and opinion pieces will do much to keep you in facts instead of embarrassing misinformation!

Sessions announced the "Zero Tolerance" policy on immigrants. Here you go from FOX (actual newscast, not Hannity):

It wasn't new laws, but a decision to instigate a zero tolerance enforcement policy that created this nightmare. The law never required separation of children from parents. It was a conscious decision by the Trump administration to do this and that is clear if you watch the newscast!

The photos of kids being held during the Obama administration are of unaccompanied minors who crossed the border without parents. They were not separated from their parents by the US Government! There was an influx of unaccompanied minors in 2014.



This is a repeat of your point #1, but:
Dem's never voted for anything like Trumps Wall.
Trump introduced the Wall as bigger and better (and more beautiful) than what had been before. It was not Bollard fencing!
Now he sometimes tries to argue that it is the same thing as the Bollard fencing that was approved in the past (but still saying it is concrete and a wall in other circumstances). His ambiguity does not help!

I've explained I see no difference between a wall and a fence, and I don't think Trump does either. And I think his "ambiguity" shows that. But if this really is an issue to the Democrats, where is their counter proposal for a fence?

Zero Tolerance. This seems to be a philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives. The conservative view is that laws are intended to be black and white without ambiguity. All discretion is left to the judge or jury. But liberals seem to believe individuals have the right to decide which laws a valid and which are not. That introduces the problem of many and various interpretations. If you think breaking a particular law is OK, and I don't, who is the arbiter? Our process allows for changing a law that the majority wants changed. But until that time, the law is the law.

Once again, where is the Democrat proposal to change the law? If sneaking across the border is OK, why don't Pelosi/Schumer introduce a bill to say so? Let's see what everybody thinks and how they vote. But simply complaining about the enforcement of a law is a poor way to challenge it. Put together the law you want, introduce it, discuss it, and let's vote. But you say what somebody thinks when they break the law matters. That's what a judge and jury are for.

If you murder somebody, it doesn't matter what you were thinking. "Hate crimes" make no sense. If somebody with the most unfortunate luck and circumstances robs a bank, they still robbed the bank. It is not a justified undocumented withdrawal. If somebody sneaks across the border for a better standard of living, they still broke the law. So getting angry about an administration enforcing the law is an unproductive and lazy response. If your view is in the majority, changing the law should be no problem. (And by the way, do you remember how that family separation became a law?) Rather than getting mad at Trump for enforcing it, why aren't you mad at the people who made it a law?

 

[KEW]

Do you really believe kneeling for the National Anthem is intended as a sign of respect?

I have a lot on my plate this afternoon, but I thought I'd respond to this statement as a quick item.

It really isn't about what I believe. The facts are well documented.

Originally, Colin Kaepernick stayed on the bench while his teammates stood for the National Anthem.

A Green Beret, Nate Boyer, who also plays/played(?) football contacted Colin and discussed with him how, as a patriot who had served in the military, it was upsetting to see Colin (one of his sports heros) sitting on the bench during the Anthem. Nate suggested that Colin kneel as a way to show respect for the flag while still making a statement about injustices in the USA. Colin agreed this was a good idea and began kneeling during the Anthem!

So yes, Colin began Kneeling (instead of sitting on the bench) specifically as a way to show respect for the flag while protesting injustices.

 

[Mikado463]

it's all Christopher Columbus fault , for if he hadn't discovered the earth wasn't flat, all the assholes on the left and right would have fallen off by now , we could meet in the middle and get something done !

 

[mtrycrafts]

... and I guess some are good people. ...

Those work for him in a number of his golf clubs or other real estates as undocumented.

 

[herbu]

I have a lot on my plate this afternoon, but I thought I'd respond to this statement as a quick item.

It really isn't about what I believe. The facts are well documented.

Originally, Colin Kaepernick stayed on the bench while his teammates stood for the National Anthem.

A Green Beret, Nate Boyer, who also plays/played(?) football contacted Colin and discussed with him how, as a patriot who had served in the military, it was upsetting to see Colin (one of his sports heros) sitting on the bench during the Anthem. Nate suggested that Colin kneel as a way to show respect for the flag while still making a statement about injustices in the USA. Colin agreed this was a good idea and began kneeling during the Anthem!

So yes, Colin began Kneeling (instead of sitting on the bench) specifically as a way to show respect for the flag while protesting injustices.

Kurt, I read that too. Assuming it's true, I can understand his intent. However, it was poor judgement, by Nate and him, to think it would be a good idea. Standing for the anthem has been a symbol of respect and allegiance for as long as most of us can remember. Regardless of intent, he didn't abstain or just not participate. He did essentially the opposite of standing, and in a very public way. It implies the opposite of respect and allegiance. And he did it at work, on the clock, actually being paid by the fans. If his intent was pure, his judgement was as flawed as poor Hetfield's above.

A lot of people, and a whole lot of liberals ;-) , don't understand that just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should. Colin had the ability to kneel. And he paid the consequences of his choice. It is the natural way of things.

We love analogies. They're fun, and give the other person something to talk about when the salient points of the discussion become too difficult. So here's one. Let's say I have a personal and fierce conviction about clergy child molesters. So to make a statement, I start attending every church wedding listed in the paper. When the bride starts down the aisle, and everybody stands, I kneel in the aisle and cross my arms over my head to make a big X. I have the ability, and some would argue the right, to do it. Fighting child molesters is a cause everybody should support. But I'm thinking there might be a better way to make my statement. And I should be prepared for the consequences if I choose to go ahead.

And for the record, I don't think Colin is stupid. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. But I don't think he understood that most of the country is not like his circle of friends and advisors. And I think he underestimated the consequences.

 

[ryanosaur]

Assuming it's true

 

[ryanosaur]

Assuming it's true

It is well documented.