It is material since you are doubling down (or even the originator) on a claim that they are line-cutters and defending Derec's conclusion. So, answer the question: do you have evidence these migrants didn't wait in line and therefore belong in Rwanda?
Maybe the new accepted defacto penalty for linecutting is deportation to Rwanda!
Key point in that video that I know Oleg will never click was how these godless abortion loving satanists treated such people. They clothed and fed them and treated them with respect and dignity.
And when a woman is complaining about Roe v Wade being overturned, it seems like whining to you if she's past menopause? Why on earth should people's sense of right and wrong shut down just as soon as they are no longer personally harmed by the action they're criticizing?Ooh, "A" for effort!
No dice though -- I wasn't implying Derec's personal characteristic bore on the validity of his argument. My reference to a personal characteristic of his was purely to show that ZiprHead's ad hominem not only was an ad hominem, but also was baseless.Making the US utterly isolationist, destroying our economy.
You're confused. I'm not defending Derec's conclusion; I'm defending Derec. The only thing I'm doubling down on is that "Oh, look! An immigrant complaining about immigrants and immigration." was a personal attack and a misleading half-truth. It's painfully obvious that Derec wasn't proposing they should be sent to Mexico City or Rwanda for immigrating; therefore ZH's accusation of a double standard was misplaced. Whether Derec's single standard has merit and is correctly applied in these immigrants' case, whether they in fact are guilty of that for which he proposes to send them away, and whether Rwanda is an appropriate destination*, are all immaterial to my defense of him. Defending those opinions is up to Derec.
You get an FRoe v Wade is about a right being overturned. Linecutting is a not about a right at all, so your analogy is even more inept that your initial response.
I do appreciate your zeal in whiteknighting efforts on the part of your tribe but yYour response gets a F for reasoning because it failed on all counts. You did not show Z's response was baseless. I did not imply an effing thing about the validity of Derec's position.Ooh, "A" for effort!
Every analogy compares situations that differ in some way; pointing out a difference is utterly not up to the task of showing an analogy is inept. Regardless of whether a right is at stake, not being the person harmed doesn't make a criticism "whining". Why the bejesus would it?You get an FRoe v Wade is about a right being overturned. Linecutting is a not about a right at all, so your analogy is even more inept that your initial response.
"Someone who is no longer in line really has little reason to complain about a linecutter." is not an argument -- this isn't a court where litigants have to prove "standing" before their positions are considered. Whether linecutting is wrong and should be penalized does not depend on whether the speaker is one of the people hurt by it.
Tribe? The heck are you on about? I'll defend anybody who's unjustly attacked. I called Derec on it when he attacked a leftist unjustly.I do appreciate your zeal in whiteknighting efforts on the part of your tribeOoh, "A" for effort!
Your sense of failure is not an argument; you're entitled to your view but you haven't given anyone a reason to take you seriously.
Nobody said you did; I explained why your "I guess that makes your argument an ad hom fallacy as well." argument was a non sequitur.
Me being an immigrant should not preclude me from having an opinion on immigration policy (or lack thereof) of this country.
Ah yes, the tired old "sex work" derail every time a Prohibitionist runs out of arguments in any thread. It usually does not happen this quickly. Congrats, I guess. Not as common as the "but Trump" derail, but still pretty common.
I do not get the cashews joke, but the laws against sex work are really no different than laws against gay sex. Both should have been invalidated under the logic behind Lawrence v. Texas, not just the latter.
If you want to have a country, borders are essential. That does not mean no immigration, I never made that argument. But we need clear laws and policies about immigration, and we need to enforce them. Sanctuary cities/states or a president deciding he will not deport most illegals should be anathema.
So was gay sex. And still is, in many jurisdictions outside the US.
While there is some of that, there is no reason to use it as an argument to restrict freedoms of consenting adults.
Not just "down south", but it does happen. And they will inevitably use the cudgel of "human trafficking" to describe any sex work sting, whether or not (it's almost always "not") there is any actual human trafficking. That asshole sheriff in Florida is case in point. I am not surprised you like him.
The asylum system is an unworkable mess. It was intended to protect those politically persecuted, but is now used mostly by economic migrants in their millions.
The latter.
Having an opinion on immigration that differs from left wing orthodoxy is not "whining". That too is an ad hominem attack against anybody who disagrees.
Says who? That is the fallacy of false dichotomy - either isolationism or de facto unrestricted immigration (which we have now pretty much).
Walls, or physical barriers, can work. Of course, physical barriers can be overcome. The point should not be to prevent crossing, but to slow illegals down so they can be apprehended. I.e. you need physical barriers that are monitored and patrolled.
Which makes it more difficult. The more easy you make it, the more decide it's worth a try. So making illegal crossings more difficult is a good goal.
It's hyperbole, but it was based on what some European countries are trying to do with their mass illegal immigration problem, quite controversially.
