T
TheAmazingGrace
Guest
The Caravan members come from majority Catholic countries and speak mostly Spanish, which is a European-based language. How are they not part of “Western culture” as you understand it?
Last edited:
- Status
P
pdl40
Guest
straw man argument. I am going to stop talking to you as you are not worth me wasting my time on.
T
TheAmazingGrace
Guest
You do you, boo. At any rate, human lives will always be worth more than your nebulous idea of “culture.”
Last edited:
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
A “more Christian nation”? We limited immigration to the demise of the Jews in the Holocaust and they were fleeing persecution as well. Similar to that era you speak of we knew they were being subjected to persecution but had no idea of just how much. Today we view it as a embarrassing and incorrigible moment in history.
Sorry, but your analogy should strike terror in the Christian heart, not animosity towards those that are fleeing.
P
pdl40
Guest
Not an analogy but facts. We today are much less a chritian nation today that we were 75 years ago. Please try just try for one single time to use facts instead of feeling to make a decision.
For example How are we to determine who should be allowed to enter this country?
Now I know you wont even try to answer that question as it takes more than just feelings to answer it.
For example How are we to determine who should be allowed to enter this country?
Now I know you wont even try to answer that question as it takes more than just feelings to answer it.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
three weeks
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
Liberals take note, this is what HEROES look like. USA USA USA BEN SHAPIRO FACTS AND FEELINGS 2020
Your bile aside, the point you are trying to make fails.
The US has always allowed people to immigrate into this country.
The US continues to do so.
Many do not want to use the legal means. They usurp the law, enter the country illegally, and then hope we will overlook this criminal activity in favor of some supposed christian principle in which we are apparently called by God to ignore a just law.
The reality is that there is no Christian principle that requires I ignore a just law. In fact just the opposite. We are called to obey the just laws of men.
Given that, I will continue with my original position.
If you want to immigrate into this country, do it right, do it legally, and I will welcome you.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
We attempt and have always worked to filter out chronically ill, criminals, and others that Congress has declared to be a burden on our society.
Criminals, gang members, human traffickers, drug smugglers.
Some years ago, I attended a seminar/lunch buffet and got talking and ended up at the end of the line … by the time all the seats were taken and ended up sitting with some retiree women who were unknown to me.
So, I asked why they were involved in … expecting talk about gardening … but, no.
They were experts on human trafficking.
I received an education … gotta tell you.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Gum ball analogy.
click here google youtube world poverty
click here google youtube world poverty
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The Truth Behind the Caravan - Ami Horowitz
90 - 95% of the migrants are male.
Not asylum seekers but looking for economic betterment.
Assisted by massive funds and resources from UN agencies (High Commission for Refugees and UNICEF, and others) and People Without Borders.
Trucks and buses ferrying the caravan between locations.
Are being trained by organizers on how to game the immigration system and what to say to reporters.
90 - 95% of the migrants are male.
Not asylum seekers but looking for economic betterment.
Assisted by massive funds and resources from UN agencies (High Commission for Refugees and UNICEF, and others) and People Without Borders.
Trucks and buses ferrying the caravan between locations.
Are being trained by organizers on how to game the immigration system and what to say to reporters.
Last edited:
A
Axsenex
Guest
Still talking about this thing?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The value of human lives within any society is fully dependent upon a proper understanding of human society, and that is only possible when human beings within any society are properly enculturated.pdl40:
You do you, boo. At any rate, human lives will always be worth more than your nebulous idea of “culture.”
Abortion is widespread in modern western culture precisely because the pre-born have little or no value in the eyes of a majority of that society. Modern western culture is a culture.
A pure lack of culture isn’t a human reality. There have been a myriad of cultures through human history, some good, some VERY bad. Getting rid of a passably good culture does not mean it will be replaced by a utopian dream.
Be very careful what you assume to be true.
Last edited:
G
graciew
Guest
It has been on their web and the UN for various days.
And yes,UNiCEF estimated about 2,300 children. They will be there with such massive migration with children.
This is their mission statement:
" UNICEF’s mission statement . UNICEF is mandated by the United Nations General Assembly to advocate for the protection of children’s rights, to help meet their basic needs and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential."
Here is what is written in the ONU page( Google translate):
UNICEF is accompanying the migrant caravan that heads to the United States to help the many children who travel there.
"The fundamental thing is to identify the needs to guarantee their physical and emotional well-being and also to guarantee that children and adolescents remain with their families in decent conditions and in spaces that do not deprive them of freedom. It is very important that they be/stay together and that the best interests of the child prevail. "
Last edited:
T
TheAmazingGrace
Guest
No one’s talking about “getting rid” of culture, whatever that means. What I said was that denying refuge to people in need for the sake of “preserving” a “culture” that’s going to evolve anyway (like the vast majority of cultures have throughout human history) is pretty racist. Not to mention stupid and un-Christian.
On a side note, why would Spanish-speaking people from majority Catholic countries be a threat to “Western culture”?
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Anyone here familiar with the concepts of “dignity culture” and “honor culture”? I think this concept explains a lot. Traditionally Judeo- Christian / WASP culture is more of a “dignity culture”, Mediterranean / Latin culture is more of an “honor culture”. Skeptic » Reading Room » Honor, Dignity, Victim A Tale of Three Moral Cultures
G
Gabika50
Guest
And, there is nothing wrong with coming here legally- my parents did. One became a Professor of Dnetistry and the other a teacher of fine arts…
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Actually, what would be “stupid” is speaking in formal terms of “evolving cultures” and providing refuge without any reference to which aspects of a culture ought to be preserved and which ought to be let go, as if there is absolutely no qualitative difference between this or that aspect of culture, and as if every aspect of culture is no better or worse than any other.HarryStotle:
No one’s talking about “getting rid” of culture, whatever that means. What I said was that denying refuge to people in need for the sake of “preserving” a “culture” that’s going to evolve anyway (like the vast majority of cultures have throughout human history) is pretty racist. Not to mention stupid and un-Christian.
It would appear that your charge of “pretty racist” might itself be based upon your determination of the origins of those aspects of current western culture that you prefer be liquidated.
You also appear to make no qualms about your disdain for human cultures generally since you shed no tear for what has been lost in those evolutions of human culture, as if everything human is disposable except what the future might bring for a brief moment in time until that “evolution,” too, will be discarded like a pair of old socks.
You might benefit from reading Walker Percy’s Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book, in particular where he speaks of the six stages of consumption.
To wit: Sixth Stage: After a sufficient lapse of time, the husk or residue of the new style is excreted and becomes an oddity, a slightly shameful thing that is still attached, like the waste in the excretory vacuole of the amoeba.
Your view of human culture appears to be roughly similar to the view an amoeba has towards what is about to enter its digestive system, or has been sitting in its vacuole for awhile.
What, precisely, do you find of sufficient value to be preserved in any culture, and how would you recognize it when you see it?
You may want to seriously think about that before you are so quick to decide that it is “unChristian” to speak in favour of preserving any aspect of human culture.
You may also want to research individuals in the past such as St. Boniface, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and Matteo Ricci.
This is hardly worth an answer, but let me me address it indirectly…
Would you claim that the Conquistadores’ actions in Central and South America were to be presumed good and right merely because they were “Spanish-speaking people from majority Catholic countries?”
Why would their language spoken or their country of origin necessarily justify their behaviour?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I think the question deserves a better answer than that. Your answer is actually a strawman argument, because you inflated the point by TheAmazingGrace to one you could more conveniently attack. The point TheAmazingGrace made was merely a refutation of the assertion that refugees from Central America represent a threat to our culture. It was not an assertion that refugees from Central America were more “good and right” than any other immigrants, only that their was no reason to assume that they were any worse. Address the actual point. Don’t build a straw man.TheAmazingGrace:
This is hardly worth an answer, but let me me address it indirectly…
Would you claim that the Conquistadores’ actions in Central and South America were to be presumed good and right merely because they were “Spanish-speaking people from majority Catholic countries?”
Why would their language spoken or their country of origin necessarily justify their behaviour?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The actual point was that the fact that these people are from a Spanish-speaking, majority Catholic country is virtually irrelevant to whether or not they are a threat to “our culture.” So why bring the point up to begin with?HarryStotle:
I think the question deserves a better answer than that. Your answer is actually a strawman argument, because you inflated the point by TheAmazingGrace to one you could more conveniently attack. The point TheAmazingGrace made was merely a refutation of the assertion that refugees from Central America represent a threat to our culture. It was not an assertion that refugees from Central America were more “good and right” than any other immigrants, only that their was no reason to assume that they were any worse. Address the actual point. Don’t build a straw man.TheAmazingGrace:
This is hardly worth an answer, but let me me address it indirectly…
Would you claim that the Conquistadores’ actions in Central and South America were to be presumed good and right merely because they were “Spanish-speaking people from majority Catholic countries?”
Why would their language spoken or their country of origin necessarily justify their behaviour?
A big, fat and red herring doesn’t even rise to the level of being considered an “actual point.”
Quite the opposite, really.
A herring – red or otherwise – is pointless, irrelevant, misleading, squishy and oily; although it is often served salted, smoked or pickled.
You aren’t proposing the fact that these people are Spanish-speaking and from a Catholic majority country is relevant to the discussion, are you?
Being majority Catholic and Spanish-speaking hasn’t exactly made Venezuela or Honduras countries of high moral and civic distinction, exactly. Nor Guatemala, El Salvador, and Belize which are not majority Catholic but predominantly Catholic.
In fact, these five are countries have the distinction of having the top-five murder rates in the entire world, Honduras being the first and Venezuela second.
Ergo, the point “TheAmazingGrace made was merely a refutation of the assertion that refugees from Central America represent a threat to our culture,” can be refuted not by the irrelevancy that these people are from a “Spanish-speaking and majority Catholic country,” but by the actual fact that 90-95% of the migrants in the caravans are young men who come from countries with the highest murder and crime rates in the world.
Would that be sufficient to counter her point that these “refugees from Central America” are just as “good and right” as “any other immigrants.”
The murder rate in Honduras is 90.4 murders per 100,000. There are hundreds of countries in the world with murder rates far lower than that. We could accept immigrants, legally, from many of those countries, no?
- Status