LA prelate ‘deeply concerned’ about Trump on immigration

[gracepoole]

When everyone knows the term “illegal” refers to a person, just as the term criminal refers to a person, does it really?

Yes. It does.

And the reflexive use of phrases like “everyone knows” on this thread is sort of disturbing.

 

[Ender]

Extreme positions, like the one I made up, are useful in disproving general assertions that are made without qualification, like your assertion that all immigration policies are morally equivalent.

This is disappointing inasmuch as I explicitly qualified my statement. Twice. How can you possibly think your example met the qualification I provided? Beyond that, extreme positions really prove nothing at all. “Men are taller than women” is an unqualified general assertion that is, in general, true. Everyone knows it is not valid without exception and what is meant by it.

But you criticized Archbishop Gomez for even commenting on this issue because you claim it cannot have a moral dimension - that there is no one out there who harbors an unjust and unloving attitude toward immigrants - no one who needs to reminded that we should look for merciful solutions.

This is false, but since this is your claim: back it up. Show us where I said it. Find the comment that supports your assertion. Alternatively, when you decide either not to try to back up your charge or realize there is no support for it, don’t invent positions and ascribe them to me.

I do not need to judge anyone’s intent to say there are likely people out there with evil intent. I don’t know who they are. Only they and God know for sure. And as long as such people exist - even if we do not know who they are - it is appropriate for Archbishop Gomez to speak to them as he has.

I don’t think he said one word about such people. I actually found his comments quite moderate, especially as compared to what other bishops have said

If you read the OP, I don’t think you will find him endorsing one concrete proposal. He is open to a diversity of merciful solutions.

Once again the solution is defined in moral terms. This is yet another way of asserting moral superiority rather than comparing the merits of one proposal against another. There are guidelines we must follow, but within those general outlines there are no moral distinctions between proposals and I reject any and every attempt to judge prudential proposals as moral choices.

As for extreme cases exceeding rational limits, there is a principle in mathematics called continuity. As I gradually dial back on the outlandishness of my proposal, at what point does it become “within rational limits” and at what point does my conclusion about there being a discernible evil intent become invalid? I suggest that the first transition happen long before the second one.

The St. Lawrence River is several miles wide at some points, and the border between the US and Canada lies somewhere in the middle, but while admitting that determining exactly where the border falls may be quite difficult, it is quite easy to know that the land on the south is US territory and the land on the north is Canadian. I don’t care that hard cases exist and I don’t need to know exactly where the tipping point is to say I am not aware of any proposal that has bubbled up in Congress that nears, let alone crosses, that line. If I’m on land south of the river I know exactly where I am regardless of not knowing exactly where the border is.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Of course synonyms are relevant. They help to give context and meaning to language.

Context and meaning derive from words that are actually used, not from words that are not used.

You said a synonym for pejorative is abusive, but a synonym for abusive is blasphemous. Are we justified in charging exnihilo with blasphemy? Moreover, a synonym for blasphemy is profanity, but the use of profanity is forbidden on these forums. Should we not report exnihilo to the moderator and have him banned?

Applying your approach to college basketball, by pointing out that A beat B who beat C etc you can “show” that Albany Teacher’s College is better than Duke.

Ender

 

[gracepoole]

Context and meaning derive from words that are actually used, not from words that are not used.

I’m guessing you’re not an English teacher.

You said a synonym for pejorative is abusive, but a synonym for abusive is blasphemous.

Only when abusive is used to refer to something vulgar. I doubt that’s applicable here. Synonyms, definitions, context – all are important when using language.

 

[abucs]

“Everyone knows…” Let me help instruct. Here is the Oxford Dictionary.

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/illegal

Not interested pNewton.

‘Illegal’ is not derogatory in the connext discussed. Don’t care in the slightest what the politically correct Oxford dictionary says.

 

[gracepoole]

Not interested pNewton.

‘Illegal’ is not derogatory in the connext discussed. Don’t care in the slightest what the politically correct Oxford dictionary says.

You “don’t care in the slightest” how language is defined? And a source that disagrees with your use of a word must be “politically correct”?

 

[abucs]

You “don’t care in the slightest” how language is defined? And a source that disagrees with your use of a word must be “politically correct”?

In this case definitely, 100%, without a shadow of a doubt - yes.

I do not give some unknown people at the Oxford dictionary company the right to define my speech and tell me when i am being derogatory.

 

[J_Peterson]

Not interested pNewton.

‘Illegal’ is not derogatory in the connext discussed. Don’t care in the slightest what the politically correct Oxford dictionary says.

The people that the label is applied to determine whether or not a word is offensive. Who are you to tell people that they shouldn’t be offended by something?

 

[abucs]

The people that the label is applied to determine whether or not a word is offensive. Who are you to tell people that they shouldn’t be offended by something?

No, That is the logic of the politically correct religion. It is literally moronic.

I never said that someone shouldn’t be offended by something. I cannot control what people are offended by. By the same token i am not ruled by the idiotic logic that says i must act a certain way because of the replacement morality of offence taking.

This is a dumbed down idiotic way to view the world.

This manufactured morality has introduced an insane victim morality into our communities and tries to force people to adhere to this new religion by rushing to play the victim and define and control others behaviour and language.

It dumbs down the people who accept it.

Who am i?

Well I’m not dumb and i don’t accept this new replacement religion, that’s for sure.

 

[J_Peterson]

No, That is the logic of the politically correct religion. It is literally moronic.

I never said that someone shouldn’t be offended by something. I cannot control what people are offended by. By the same token i am not ruled by the idiotic logic that says i must act a certain way because of the replacement morality of offence taking.

This is a dumbed down idiotic way to view the world.

This manufactured morality has introduced an insane victim morality into our communities and tries to force people to adhere to this new religion by rushing to play the victim and define and control others behaviour and language.

It dumbs down the people who accept it.

Who am i?

Well I’m not dumb and i don’t accept this new replacement religion, that’s for sure.

You don’t have to use that term, you choose to do so. Since you know that others find it offensive and insulting, you don’t seem care what others say, think, or feel. How do you resolve that with the words of Jesus?

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

It’s about humility and putting the other person first.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is false, but since this is your claim: back it up. Show us where I said it. Find the comment that supports your assertion.

From your posting #114:

• They are “undocumented” because they are here illegally. That point cannot be overlooked. Well, I guess it can be because the archbishop has done so, but it shouldn’t be.

Trump is not yet even officially elected and already the bishops are trying to influence his policies. I am not really interested in the political pronouncements of the clergy.*
Was I wrong in taking this to be you being critical of the Archbishop’s message?

 

[abucs]

You don’t have to use that term, you choose to do so.

.

Actually i don’t believe i have used the term here. I said it is not derogatory and am angered about people trying to control the argument through believing they can police others language. That’s 2 for 2 in jumping in to tell others how they should behave and getting your facts wrong.

How do you resolve that with the words of Jesus?

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

Well if i was in a foreign country illegally and was referred to as an illegal i’d say yeah, that’s a fair call. That is, i resolve the words of Jesus by being coherent and fair and honest. I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to want to control the language of the people whose country i was illegally in.

It’s about humility and putting the other person first.

No it is about controlling others language and actions through an incoherent manufactured morality of offence taking. There is a reason why political correctness is abhorred by millions of decent people across the western world. We are not here for you to control under the false claim of following Christian values. Humility is not meekness, especially in the face of others telling you how to behave and how to speak.

 

[Theo520]

It is immoral. It is a direct violation of Catholic social teaching that demand a preference for the poor.

usccb.org/about/domestic-social-development/resources/upload/poverty-common-good-CST.pdf

[web.archive.org/web/20160802175343/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The universal destination of goods and the preferential option for the poor](Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church universal destination of goods and the preferential option for the poor)
An yes, the United States also has a responsibility to the world. We are the rich man of the world in the parable of Lazarus. We dare not follow his path into perdition.

Historically, this has not happened. Immigration has paved the way a greater economic future. Having too much labor is as odd as having too much capital, or too many natural resources. Immigration has always had its detractors who have engaged in nativist fear-mongering, predicting disaster from all the Irish, Polish, Chinese, and now the Mexicans.

The situation today is nothing new. We have been through this before.

Yes, our Govt is thus called to address the poverty of our CITIZENS, that is their priority
But it is not called to import them by the millions, poor immigrants mostly remain in poverty in this country.

Helping poverty in other countries is complex since they are usually run by corruption. We are already very generous in times of famine or crisis, and we should continue to do so.

Perhaps you can also advise how we effectively reduce our on poverty, we’ve spent many trillions fighting poverty in our country with little effect.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, our Govt is thus called to address the poverty of our CITIZENS, that is their priority
But it is not called to import them by the millions, poor immigrants mostly remain in poverty in this country.

Helping poverty in other countries is complex since they are usually run by corruption. We are already very generous in times of famine or crisis, and we should continue to do so.

Perhaps you can also advise how we effectively reduce our on poverty, we’ve spent many trillions fighting poverty in our country with little effect.

“Poverty” is a relative term. By third world standards, almost nobody in the U.S. lives in “poverty”. And the definition around the world would be different from other parts of the world. I read that in some places in Africa, a man with ten cows is considered “wealthy”, even though he lives in a thatched hut, goes around barefoot and couldn’t afford a doctor no matter what. In some places, a man who owns fishing tackle is “wealthy” because he can catch fish almost at will and ensure that he and his family can eat nearly every day.
Owning a car is beyond his wildest dreams. And yet, many a person deemed in “poverty” in the U.S. owns a car and doesn’t think it’s much of a privilege because it isn’t new.

But everywhere, reasonably gainful employment is the cure for “poverty”, and the only one there really is.

 

[gracepoole]

No it is about controlling others language and actions through an incoherent manufactured morality of offence taking. There is a reason why political correctness is abhorred by millions of decent people across the western world. We are not here for you to control under the false claim of following Christian values. Humility is not meekness, especially in the face of others telling you how to behave and how to speak.

I assume, then, that you routinely use the n-word and have no problems with others who do likewise. Yes?

 

[Adonia]

“Poverty” is a relative term. By third world standards, almost nobody in the U.S. lives in “poverty”. And the definition around the world would be different from other parts of the world. I read that in some places in Africa, a man with ten cows is considered “wealthy”, even though he lives in a thatched hut, goes around barefoot and couldn’t afford a doctor no matter what. In some places, a man who owns fishing tackle is “wealthy” because he can catch fish almost at will and ensure that he and his family can eat nearly every day.
Owning a car is beyond his wildest dreams. And yet, many a person deemed in “poverty” in the U.S. owns a car and doesn’t think it’s much of a privilege because it isn’t new.

But everywhere, reasonably gainful employment is the cure for “poverty”, and the only one there really is.

You got all that right! Even our “poorest” citizens have hot and cold running water direct from a tap in their home, plus an indoor toilet connected right to the sewer line. No one here in America can complain. The fact is we have the richest poor around.

 

[Theo520]

You got all that right! Even our “poorest” citizens have hot and cold running water direct from a tap in their home, plus an indoor toilet connected right to the sewer line. No one here in America can complain. The fact is we have the richest poor around.

We do have a large homeless pop that are lacking those amenities.

 

[M-Dent]

We do have a large homeless pop that are lacking those amenities.

I can attest with some visits with a local Catholic organization SvDP - there’s a forgotten few who live under bridges and in parks. Not a fun place in this area tonight with this freakish cold weather.

 

[abucs]

I assume, then, that you routinely use the n-word and have no problems with others who do likewise. Yes?

No. Another sign of the politically correct religion - to ascribe the worst of actions and motives on people with zero evidence because you want it to be true.

Yet another sign of the politically correct religion - to conflate two different actions or ideas in an effort to shame someone.

I notice with incredulity however how a certain race of people can use your term in the most aggressive and condescending manner without anyone batting an eyelid and yet if a white person even mentions the word in the abstract sense then people go nuts. This is a definite sign of the insanity of politically correct control of people based on race.

 

[abucs]

People have had it with the enforced manufactured morals of this crazy PC religion. It is literally moronic.