I am renouncing my former identity as a United States citizen named Craig and will henceforth identify as a Venezuelan named Jose Rafael. It’ll take a while to change everything, but from here on out please refer to me as Jose.
Thank You
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Because there is a significant chance that this will get deleted, I'm preserving it here and with context
Dans, comment/"real world" example/"question"
"Craig, I GET that you think you answered the question asked of you. You didn't. Not in the real world. It's just another example of your inability to read my words and reach the conclusion/point I was making. For your sake, then, I'm just deleting your comments because, really, it's embarrassing for you.
I get that you don't understand it, but it's reality, nonetheless. You'll just have to trust me on this.
You have not answered the question and you are not understanding my words (i.e., when you say, "you're saying THIS," I'm literally not saying that, instead, you're misunderstanding.
Look, Craig, I'll give you one more chance. Here's a story. See if you can answer the question correctly.
Fido the dog live next door to Farmer Bob. One day farmer Bob was talking to the neighbors and everybody from the front porch. Farmer Bob said, "dogs are evil. They just want to kill everything. Don't trust dogs."
Fido responded (because Fido was a talking dog), "well I'm not 'all dogs' but I am a dog and I don't want to kill. I'm not evil. None of the dogs that I know are evil or want to kill. None of the books that I've ever read for data that I've ever researched (because Fido was also literate and well-informed) suggest that dogs want to kill. Sure, there might be an outlier that only wants to kill and wants to be evil, but there's nothing like any data or suggestion that this is a common trait of dogs."
Someone later asked Fido, "so did you think farmer Bob was talking about you?" Fido responded, "no. Clearly he was not speaking about me specifically. He was literally speaking about dogs, of which I am a part."
Now the question Craig. And look, I'll even give you the right answer to make it easier for you.
Did Fido the dog think that farmer Bob was talking about him specifically?
The only right answer from a factual real world point of view is...
No.
No Fido did NOT think that farmer Bob was talking about him specifically. Indeed, Fido recognized the reality (it was not an opinion just the reality of it) that farmer Bob was speaking specifically of the group, Dogs, because that's what Bob literally said. That isn't what Fido THOUGHT, it was reality. And reality is that Fido was part of that group, dogs and he was familiar with that group, Dogs. And he spoke from that place of knowing about the group farmer Bob was literally speaking about. But the only correct answer to the question is no, Fido did not think farmer Bob was speaking specifically of him. Can you answer that question correctly? It's a simple... a question one word answer will suffice."
My answer/response.
Except I have answered the question, and I've demonstrated that I have. Except I'm not saying "You said this...", I'm actually quoting your exact words, not my interpretation of the words.
The only right answer in the real word is that Fido is a freaking dog and as such is not capable of complex thought, or of expressing complex thought. You see when you try to suggest that an example that uses a "talking dog", is a "real world" example, you negate the entire example. The right answer in you unreal world hypothetical is no. It's not no because you've demonstrated factually that no is the right answer. It's no because you've announced that no is the only answer you will accept, based on your own subjective criteria.
I've answered your question. I've stated my opinion based on the content of the post you wrote. The problem you have is that you want me to "prove" my opinion is objectively right. But it's an opinion, it can't be proven right or wrong.
I've based my opinion on how you have responded to many posts over a long period of time. This is just one more example of you responding to a post written about a group of people in general, in terms that revolve around you and the relatively small group of people you know.
Beyond that, you've made claims in your screed that, in one case you haven't backed up, and in another case I've demonstrated that you claim is inaccurate.
But, I guess it's easier to hector me about my expressing of an opinion, than it is to deal with areas where you're claims don't match reality.
I have to note your glaring inconsistency, regarding your expectations of others answering your questions, with your actions in answering other peoples questions.
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Maybe if more...
Maybe if more of the citizens of various Central and South American countries responded to evil, corrupt, oppressive governments like the citizens of Venezuela, things in that part of the world might be different. They might even improve.
For all the She Guevera fans, look at how well socialism works.
For all the She Guevera fans, look at how well socialism works.
Context is good
I keep seeing folx posting an article that suggests that US foreign policy is primarily (completely) to blame for the conditions in the Caribbean, Central, and South America and have been intrigued by the premise.
I want to start by saying that it’s probably a mistake to place too much emphasis in judging 17-19th century decisions through a 21st century lens. It might be appropriate to not assume the most negative intent on those involved. With that said, I’m not making the blanket argument that everything the US did was positive or even neutral.
I am saying that it’s simplust to ignore all the players.
Spain certainly didn’t leave their colonies with much that would lead to healthy stable free countries. Let’s also remember that Mexico had an excellent constitution, until Mexican patriots decided otherwise.
No one knows for sure, but France set Haiti up for failure when they murdered Toussaint. (Not saying things would have been perfect, but most likely better than Dessalines).
Can we agree that the various religious traditions might have contributed to the current situation? Certothe Roman Church is significant, but even the African religious practices that contributed to Vodou and Santeria haven’t all been positive.
We certainly can’t ignore the Soviet Union and it’s Cuban surrogates contributions, can we?
Even recently we’ve seen the ONG world causing problems, including the Clinton foundation.
I’m quite sure that I’ve missed some more significant contributions to the current situation, but the point is that trying to blame the US first, is at best simplistic and partisan, at worst wrong.
I’d also point out that attributing evil motives to those who made decisions decades or centuries ago is probably not helpful either. Clearly many bad choices have been made throughout history, I’m wondering if it might be more helpful to not always assume the worst about people.
I want to start by saying that it’s probably a mistake to place too much emphasis in judging 17-19th century decisions through a 21st century lens. It might be appropriate to not assume the most negative intent on those involved. With that said, I’m not making the blanket argument that everything the US did was positive or even neutral.
I am saying that it’s simplust to ignore all the players.
Spain certainly didn’t leave their colonies with much that would lead to healthy stable free countries. Let’s also remember that Mexico had an excellent constitution, until Mexican patriots decided otherwise.
No one knows for sure, but France set Haiti up for failure when they murdered Toussaint. (Not saying things would have been perfect, but most likely better than Dessalines).
Can we agree that the various religious traditions might have contributed to the current situation? Certothe Roman Church is significant, but even the African religious practices that contributed to Vodou and Santeria haven’t all been positive.
We certainly can’t ignore the Soviet Union and it’s Cuban surrogates contributions, can we?
Even recently we’ve seen the ONG world causing problems, including the Clinton foundation.
I’m quite sure that I’ve missed some more significant contributions to the current situation, but the point is that trying to blame the US first, is at best simplistic and partisan, at worst wrong.
I’d also point out that attributing evil motives to those who made decisions decades or centuries ago is probably not helpful either. Clearly many bad choices have been made throughout history, I’m wondering if it might be more helpful to not always assume the worst about people.
Leftist lecturing
We're frequently lectured by folx on the left about things like tolerance, acceptance, morality, non-violence, and other virtues they proudly proclaim.
Yet when a virtual lynch mob of social media, advocates harm (I believe that physical violence and death fall under the broad category of harm), to a teenage boy based on "fake news", I hear very little in the way of condemnation or concern.
Beyond that, what system of morality would condone (by silence or otherwise) the offering of sexual favors to anyone who would physically attack another person?
It's also interesting that the sexual favors offered only apply to men, where is the outrage at the homophobia and sexism displayed by the woman making the offer.
Hypocrisy is alive and well among the American political left.
Yet when a virtual lynch mob of social media, advocates harm (I believe that physical violence and death fall under the broad category of harm), to a teenage boy based on "fake news", I hear very little in the way of condemnation or concern.
Beyond that, what system of morality would condone (by silence or otherwise) the offering of sexual favors to anyone who would physically attack another person?
It's also interesting that the sexual favors offered only apply to men, where is the outrage at the homophobia and sexism displayed by the woman making the offer.
Hypocrisy is alive and well among the American political left.
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
- It's about all the open borders types who live in gated communities or walled estates. It's about the folks who want to ban guns for everyone except their armed private security.ReplyDelete
-
I don't know what Craig is talking about. I'm the person who wrote it. I don't live in a gated community, I live in an urban community next door to folks with mental illness and surrounded by folks from all different cultures.. who is in church relationships with immigrant folks.Reply
So that first comment from Craig is clearly not directed towards me and seems a bit meaningless or out of context here.
And on the second comment, I do not own guns and I do not have an armed private security nor do I know anyone who does. So I have no idea what Craig is talking about, other than just trying to automatically going on the attack, Maybe.
What I'm talking about in my poem is those who would let fear dictate policy rather than reason, Justice or compassion. And when people let fear dictate policy, they often times will come up with irrational nonsensical Solutions like a border wall that all one has to do is go over or go around to beat. -
I assumed you wrote this bit of doggerel, and am responding in a more tongue in cheek way to the larger issue.ReplyDelete
Clearly anyone who would build a wall to stop a bird is insane, but that's not really the point.
What does seem to be the point is that Dan thinks that a wall won't be 100% effective, and he thinks that people seriously might believe that it will be 100% effective. I'll say that teeing off on an argument that isn't being made isn't necessarily effective.
Although, I think that your last actually made my jesting comments on topic. Clearly many people (including those who advocate for open borders) believe that ereact8ng walls will increase their security. Once can only assume that you would criticize the folx that live in gated communities, operate things like stadia, arenas, courthouses, government facilities, are all acting from unwarranted fear and that they should tear down the walls (or similar barriers) immediately.
If you can point out what you believe are peoples motivations for implementing policy, it only seems fair to point out those that hypocritically don't live by the same rules they'd impose on others.
FYI, you're right, the wall Israel build has proven very effective of stopping suicide bombers who espouse the "religion of peace", unfortunately it hasn't worked particularly well at stopping the regular barrages of mortars, artillery, and missiles, lobbed indiscriminately at unsuspecting and innocent civilians. -
Again, my point is, it's rather obvious that a 15 foot wall can be beat by 20 ft ladder. A wall that goes 100 miles can be beat by walking 102 miles. The point is that experts say this is a waste of money and it's a huge waste of money.Reply
Add to that how Trump has made this a racist issue trying to block the brown Invaders, as the new conservatives call them, just makes it evil instead of the welcoming of strangers that more moral and rational people would speak of. That's my point. -
My point is rather obvious. The larger question then is why conservatives would defend the racist reasoning xenophobia in fear behind the current new conservative push for walls to keep out Invaders.Reply
-
Yes Dan, we understand that you believe that there should be no impediment to crossing the borders. Please, provide the actual quotes where the “race” of those who cross our border in violation of our current law is explicitly stated.ReplyDelete
Your point is obvious, it’s just not compelling and not consistent. -
That you don't understand my position or understand how it's consistent doesn't mean that it's not compelling or consistent. It just means you don't understand.Reply
Trump and his racist KKK type supporters have made it clear that this is about race from day one were accused Mexicans of sending rapists and killers. Again that you don't understand the racism involved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ask your friends of color to explain it to you. -
Dan, you are right about something. You are correct that no matter what people do to enforce the law or protect themselves, there are other people who will go out of their way to surmount those protective measures.ReplyDelete
You’re definitely right about that. -
If your latest claim is factually accurate, you should have no trouble providing proof of your claim.ReplyDelete
Or are you taking the She Guevara route and trying to say that facts don’t matter as long as you’re “morally right”?
I guess you’d have to admit that it’s possible to be objectively “morally right” first. Or just jump on the “by any means necessary” bandwagon.
But your still right that some folx (see my earlier “religion of peace” comment as an example. -
Craig, what are you talkin about? None of your comments appear to have any relation to the topic of the post. None of your claims appear to be connected to reality.Reply
So I'm not sure what it is you're even trying to say, just sounds like gobbledygook from someone who's not understanding a conversation. It's as if I'm talking about the best recipes for spaghetti and you're offering something like, "...On the other hand, the moonwalk was mostly filmed in Arizona in the 1930s and dainty rabbits are notorious for having bad dandruff issues."
You're not making sense.
What I'm saying is simple.
1. The experts tell us that a wall will be terribly expensive and ineffective.
2. Despite Trump's irrational and fear-mongering claims, we have no emergency On the Border to the South beyond the emergency of people seeking refuge and being blocked from receiving it.
3. There is no huge influx of terrorist or drugs coming across the border that a wall would stop. Trump's claims to the contrary are just false claims.
If you're not commenting on these points, you're off topic. Stop going off-topic or go away. -
In spite of your hateful spin on it, you are right in your understanding standing of my point if you're saying that, if people are escaping danger and they come across a wall they WILL go over it. Because, of course they would. They would be stupid and immoral not to do so.Reply
To hell with f****** walls that stop people seeking Refuge. That is just a basic reasonable moral position to take. Before you comment here any further can you clarify that you agree with that reality? That it is immoral to build a wall to stop people seeking Refuge from harm? -
To reiterate, the wall does not stop terrorists, does not stop drug dealers... neither of which tend to use these open spaces for Crossing.Reply
And they don't stop people seeking Refuge, either, although they probably do make it more difficult for the poor folks trying to do that. Certainly the xenophobic and fear-mongering demonization of refugees and immigrants does make it more difficult. That is what is stupid and evil because it is evil to stop people from seeking safety. Do you agree with that notion? I would say it's also evil to make it difficult for people seeking safety. Do you agree with that reality? -
The question put to you, Craig, was do you agree that is evil to stop people or make it difficult for people to seek safety? It's a pretty simple question that any right-thinking moral person should be able to answer because the answer is clear and obvious. The balls in your Park.Reply
Thursday, January 3, 2019
I probably shouldn't
Feo,
You know that your comments won't be posted until you do what you've been asked. You know that I'm not a Trump supporter, didn't vote for him, won't vote for him, and have been critical of him more than I've been supportive. Given the fact that you appear to be somewhat intelligent, why would you continue to post off topic, anti Trump comments, over and over again?
I really don't need, want, or expect an answer. Nor do I need, want, or expect the deluge of absurdity you will certainly unleash.
But, I thought I'd remind you that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
You know that your comments won't be posted until you do what you've been asked. You know that I'm not a Trump supporter, didn't vote for him, won't vote for him, and have been critical of him more than I've been supportive. Given the fact that you appear to be somewhat intelligent, why would you continue to post off topic, anti Trump comments, over and over again?
I really don't need, want, or expect an answer. Nor do I need, want, or expect the deluge of absurdity you will certainly unleash.
But, I thought I'd remind you that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The answer, again, is that it is wrong to “stop people from seeking safety”. Calling it “evil” (or my comments “hateful”), simply diminishes actual “evil” and “hateful”.
Of course, I’m not (nor is anyone else) suggesting that people be “stopped” from seeking safety. Further, no one is suggesting that “race” is the primary factor in this debate.
The problem you have is that you can’t prove the premises underlying your position, so you’ve decided that you just won’t and instead will attack me.
And yet, there is no wall.
Explain that, please. Using fact based evidence.
_____
Regarding race, was the poll tax or citizenship question entry to vote in the South explicitly racist? No. Was slavery explicitly racist? No. Marshall claims the slavery cannot even be found in the Constitution, so, to him - and perhaps yourself - the Constitution isn't explicitly racist.
But, as Chris Wallace hammered Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Fox: Sanders: “We know that roughly nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally..." Wallace: "Wait wait, ’cause I know the statistic,” he said. “I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come or where they’re captured? Airports... The state department says there hasn’t been any terrorists found coming across the southern border from Mexico."
_____
One more question: do you think the Republicans would have nominated a candidate with an illegal immigrant wife from a Latin American country?
"Let me tell you one thing,” President Trump said. “She has got it so documented, so she's going to have a little news conference over the next couple of weeks.” That was August 2016, when questions about Melania Trump's immigration history first cropped up. It has now been 28 months, and that news conference has not happened.
I still have the comment on my email. What you literally said was,
"I agree that no wall will stop people from seeking safety. It might help regulate how people seek safety, but it won't stop people who seek safety."
In other words,you literally did not answer the question. Do you understand that reality?
In reality, I did answer the question by saying that it’s not about stopping, it’s about regulating.
But, I have to compliment you. You actually provided actual evidence to support your claim. You should do that more often.
Of course, Craig will ignore me. It hurts his pride to have to answer to someone who uses facts rather than merely naming their - somewhere - existence
Another fact. We do not have open borders. Haven't had since the 1880s. What we have, like most other countries, are controlled borders. What we will never have, which Marshall and Craig seem to want, are closed borders where there is a fence around everything.
BTW, even Bernie Sanders is against open borders. Get your facts right, Craig before you enter a mature conversation.
This focus on the "wall" from both sides is simplistic and more of a diversion than anything. If the conversation is simply going to focus on one part of a multifaceted bigger picture, it's probably not worth having.
Unfortunately "walls" work. If these sorts of barriers didn't work, they wouldn't be everywhere. They aren't the be all and end all, but as one part of a larger strategy, they work.
If Trump was even reasonably aware, he'd stop talking about the wall and expand the discussion. If the left was serious about anything but blocking Trump, we would have seen something more comprehensive by now.
One additional problem that both sides have is focusing on one relatively small slice of the reasons why people cross the border in violation of US law. Some focus on only those who cross for bad reasons and try to project on the rest. Some focus on the "refugees" and try to project their feelings across a broad spectrum.
In all honesty, this problem has been kicked down the road by multiple administrations and congresses. As long as the debate is more about bashing Trump than about making progress, it's simply a colossal waste of time.
Chris Wallace: "Wait wait, ’cause I know the statistic,” he said. “I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come or where they’re captured? Airports.
It’s not that I didn’t answer, as much as my disagreeing with your premise.
No, it's LITERALLY that you didn't answer the question that was asked. It was an easy question that any moral rational person should be able to answer. It establishes a basic human rights and justice principle as a starting point for this conversation.
Last time to answer directly and clearly, Craig...
1. Do you agree that you literally did not answer the question that was asked of you?
2. Do you agree that it is wrong/evil/immoral/atrocious to try to prevent people from seeking refuge from harm?
Simple questions. Answer both with the only right answer there is or I'll remove your comments as they are not being offered in good faith.
As to the "focus on the wall," the ONLY reason that Dems are focusing on the wall is because the idiot and perverted liar in charge keeps trying to build it and keeps repeating the lies that it's there to prevent terrorists and invading brown people from entering, playing upon racist tropes that his racist supporters (the KKK types) rally around and which his other followers keep defending, even though it is a racist trope he's offering.
By all means, END the attempts to "build a wall" and deal with the problems of WHY are there refugees and immigrants at the borders... the dire straits of people seeking refuge and a better life. Make entry easier, not more difficult, for people seeking refuge. If you want to fund something to make a difference, FULLY FUND the "legal" ports of entry so that there are plenty of people to process refugee claims in a prompt and timely manner, for instance. Work out the citizenship plans for DACA folk. Those are actually helpful actions that IF Trump supporters focused on THOSE sorts of things, THEN you wouldn't be participating in Trump's and the KKK types of folk's dog whistles and racist actions/plans.
A wall "works" to keep people out when one builds a secure wall all the way around whatever it is you're trying to protect.
A wall fails - and is wrong and evil - when it prevents people from seeking safety.
A wall fails if all you have to do is climb over it.
We are a nation of doors, not walls. Let us live up to our better ideals, not cave to racist fears.
One other requirement, Craig: Admit that this is a bullshit claim that you CAN NOT support with data (the suggestion that the refugee problem is only a "small slice" of the explanation of why people are crossing our borders) or provide data that shows it's factually not a large problem for many of those coming from Latin America (and other places, as well, but Trump's been focusing mainly on the brown people from the South).
"In that case, about 1,500 people started their journey in southern Mexico, but the caravan dwindled down to a few hundred by the time they reached the Mexican border with California in April. And according to federal data, most of them did exactly what they said they were going to do: presented themselves at U.S. ports of entry and applied for asylum.
According to data and congressional testimony from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials, 401 members of that caravan requested asylum at ports of entry, a legal right enshrined in U.S. law and international conventions the U.S. is party to.
Federal officials interviewed those asylum-seekers and found 374 of them, or 93 percent, passed the first test on the path toward asylum, where they must demonstrate that they have a “credible fear” of returning to their home country. That’s higher than the 76 percent approval rate that all asylum-seekers received in fiscal year 2018, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services data."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/23/migrant-caravan-how-many-sought-asylum/1741030002/
More facts and data for you to consider, Craig, before making other false or dubious claims...
https://www.wola.org/analysis/fact-sheet-united-states-immigration-central-american-asylum-seekers/
2. No, I don’t think trying to regulate immigration is “evil”. Again, I don’t agree with your premise. I agree that people have a legitimate right to seek safety, although it’s not an unlimited right. I agree that to preempt people from “seeking” a safer situation is wrong. I disagree with the term “evil”. It minimizes real evil, and it’s an attempt to smear people with s loaded emotional term simply because they disagree with you. I disagree with the term “evil” because you haven’t laid a foundation that allows for an objective standard of “evil”.
I understand your determination to resort to threats and intimidation in order to force me into agreeing with you. I suspect you’ll delete these comments regardless of how many times I answer you, unless I simply parrot your unfounded claims.
I get it, it’s an old tired game, but I get it.