I
Inisfallen
Guest
Good stuff. I’ve often wondered if something like the Marshall Plan, but for Central and South American, might be in our long-term best interests.
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
We still need immigration, though, because the native born birth rate is below replacement. I do not wish to see a “demographic winter”. I just think the way we are going about it is irrational.
P
philipl
Guest
No, but you really believe that bring a few thousand from there is making a real difference. When youre not make a snow ball difference. See that is why liberal policies can fail over and over and over and over. AS long as your intentions are good thats all that matters.
P
philipl
Guest
Yes.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It will make a real difference to those few thousand. Why do you think that just because we can only do a part of the job we should not do any of the job? The Good Samaritan on the road to Jericho did not make a real difference to the overall safety of the road from robbers. He only made a difference to the one man he found. If he reasoned as you are suggesting, he would have said “I can’t help everyone who falls victim to thugs on the road, so I won’t bother to help this one man here.”
A
abucs
Guest
I am not interested in the false equivalences of political correctness.
Because some people find a term offensive, it is not a reason to castigate others for using it That is not the moral high ground. It is the low ground.
This all stems from a secular way of trying to define right and wrong on human terms. What has happened is that people have rushed to be offended. It has created the brutal political strategy of castigating people from a false moral high ground in order to control and silence others. The use of law to back up this brutal false morality creates a real danger to citizen’s ongoing respect for law.
In Australia there is a law on the books that it is wrong to offend someone on certain grounds. I can give you a list of the insane cases brought that tries to silence and police others actions. This way of thinking is clearly wrong. It pretends to defend the little guy while in actuality seeks to dominate others.
This way of thinking is not Christian and it causes angry backlash, division and dare i say it, offence.
A
abucs
Guest
There are many ways to help people Leaf. Try finding one that doesn’t cause the division with your fellow citizens and has you forcing an unwanted lifestyle on people that you then believe is just to bill them and their children for.
A
abucs
Guest
Well if it went straight past me Grace it is because, shaking my head, i stood aside and let it go sailing past because it was a false equivalence. Read again my comment in that very post addressing your attempt by explaining the ridiculous tactics of political correctness to equate two different actions or ideas in an effort to shame people.That went right past you, I see. If, as you wrote earlier, “it is about controlling others language and actions through an incoherent manufactured morality of offence taking,” why would you have a problem with the n-word? Isn’t that simply another example of others trying to “control your language and actions”? What makes the cultural prohibition against its usage any more coherent than a prohibition against a word like “illegal” being used to describe human beings?
I appreciate the ad hominem attack, though.
Let me tell you straight. If you try to force another ugly false equivalence on me i will again step aside and let it go straight past me.
That forced ugliness doesn’t work anymore Grace.
P
pnewton
Guest
Charity can cost. Maintaining one’s lifestyle is not the goal of Man.
A
abucs
Guest
Robbing someone else of their lifestyle is not so great either.
A
abucs
Guest
Yeah, to a large extent that is exactly what I’ve said.
P
pnewton
Guest
As Christmas approaches, I remember Pope Francis spoke last year of excess:
cruxnow.com/church/2015/12/24/pope-francis-calls-on-followers-of-christ-to-spurn-wealth/
A
abucs
Guest
Yes, yes and yes again but forcing onto others a lifestyle you deem is proper is definitely wrong.
A great difference between Christianity and today’s state manufactured morality is in the parable of a hungry man.
Christianity is you befriending him and giving him some of your food to eat.
Today’s state manufactured morality is through state dictate taking food off others to give to anyone fitting a criteria as determined by bureaucratic committee forever and a day and castigating all who disagree as immoral people.
A great trouble with Catholicism today is that many can’t tell the difference.
They should.
E
Ender
Guest
You’ve mixed together several issues that need to be addressed separately if they are to be understood properly. To start with, we cannot speak of “immigration” without distinguishing between legal and illegal; those are entirely different concerns. Second, making policy proposals with regard to what our immigration laws ought to be has nothing to do with the church’s interaction with people who are already here. Third, my experience with the interaction between churches and immigrants is not one of assimilation, but the exact opposite.
It is a political issue. Period. Only at the extremes do moral choices begin to appear, but at the level of concrete proposals which have actually been introduced by the Congress the choices are entirely prudential. This is what the archbishop is trying to influence, an action I find of questionable appropriateness.
Before yes, but they are clearly not being assimilated now. Assimilation is no longer even an objective.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
It is important not to let the debate become sidetracked by switching the discussion to something else. Anyone coming from Allepo would have to do it legally, and they would be justified in claiming to be in fear of their lives. Neither is characteristic of the illegals flooding across our southern border.
There are several separate issues to address with regard to immigration, and it is never a good idea to raise exceptional situations as of they should determine the entire approach. We need to find ways of severely limiting the inflow of illegals. That is an entirely separate concern from determining what our legal limits should be, which is a separate concern from determining how we should handle exceptional cases.
We’re not discussing aiding people fleeing for their lives from war. We’re talking about dealing with decades of a massive and uncontrolled influx of people who mostly want in on a good thing.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The only reason I mentioned Allepo was to refute the claim that letting immigrants into the country does not help them but hurts them. I think it is quite clear that letting immigrants into the country from our southern border would help those immigrants too. But it was just so much more obvious when applied to potential immigrants fleeing from the Syrian civil war. I just didn’t want to get into an argument over “How bad can it be in Mexico?”
G
gracepoole
Guest
You do realize that stating something is a “false equivalence” doesn’t actually demonstrate that it is, right? If political correctness in total is just “ridiculous,” you should have no problem with the comparison I made.
A
abucs
Guest
Yes i do understand that, right.
Some people think the word ‘guys’ is offensive and go on through the same false morality to shame people into not using it.
Others think the term “traditional marriage” is offensive.
Others think the term “Right to Life” is offensive because it denotes others are against life and so insist on anti-Abortion.
Some people think that the word ‘mankind’ is offensive or
calling Caitlen Jenna ‘he’ is offensive, or
saying America is a land of opportunity is offensive or
even saying “all lives matter” is offensive.
What about Washington Redskins, Fireman, negroes, Afro-Americans, coloured people, people of colour, (God help us), Chinamen, Paddies, Limeys etc etc.
I even had a militant Feminist Theology teacher who was offended by the masculine use of the word “He” for God. She was also offended about using the term New Testament because she taught it was an insult to the Jews.
I don’t live my life based on others idea of offence. I come out strongly against those who try to force language on others. That way has shown itself to be utterly devoid of reason where offence is used as a weapon against others culture and sincere traditions.
youtube.com/watch?v=KerMG9x-Zu8
youtube.com/watch?v=Sw5bKqUGc3A
listverse.com/2015/08/25/10-most-absurd-things-to-ban-on-politically-correct-college-campuses/
You pulled out one example, the worst you could think of and put it onto me.
That was not only wrong but a false equivalence and hence not a logical argument as the above plethora of examples demonstrate.
Each case is different. You can’t pull out the worst example you can think of and say “oh you must approve of and routinely think this way then”.
Now that is offensive.
E
exnihilo
Guest
The term illegal isn’t applied to only an ethic group or only a religious group. It is applied to people who violate our law by entering and remaining in our country illegally. Using the word illegal is in no way dehumanizing. What is your basis for making such an accusation?
E
exnihilo
Guest
Yes Jesus did say things that offended who people were in a general sense. He didn’t have nice things to say about the Scribes and the Pharisees. He called them out as a group. Does this mean every Scribe and Pharisee was equally guilty of what Jesus condemned?
And yes Jesus did say things that were offensive about the poor. He said things that were offensive in his time about how one should esteem the poor. That was offensive.
- Status