Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's how debates are supposed to work according to CF rules and staff guidelines. Which reflects the rules and decorum of virtually any debate forum. We're supposed to be debating the position each of us in maintaining, without getting personal. When it get's personal it goes from a topical debate to a spat.
Exactly. Im asking for your opinion on a moral question (not a report on other rando's opinions). Thats not "personal". Your opinion and mine is precisely what this sub forum is for.
It is not necessarily an actual contradiction to argue for example less heavy-handed immigration enforcement (or even open borders) and at the same time argue for a single-payer healthcare system. It depends on the actual arguments. It might only mean they don't fit into your preconceived notions of social justice protestors or libertarians.
I think I've stated my opinion on the subject clearly. That for the greater part immigration control agents have been exercising the same standard procedures they always have. And I have no objections to them performing their standard methods and procedures. I didn't object to it or become outraged over it in the last 50 years, and I don't see any reason to suddenly start now.
But selective applications of those concepts would cut against itself in terms of a principle.
Only if they appeal to the same principle (government should be as limited as possible). Do you have any explicit example?
Some might be arguing from an utilitarian perspective, and believe that both less heavy handed immigration enforcement and a single-payer system are the choices that maximizes utility in a society (regardless if they are correct or not).
Covid vaccine requirement enforcement vs. Immigration requirement enforcement
www.ibtimes.com
Those amendments have never given a person the right to obstruct and resist law enforcement.
It needs to be the same persons and them appealing to the same principle for it to be contradictory.
I don't know, you seem to imply it.
Is it? Did persons that supported the vaccine requirements for society even make any constitutional arguments? Wasn't it mostly arguments for the need to "flatten the curve" and protect the most vulnerable in society, it was in Sweden. What was the constitutional argument for vaccine requirements? For it to be a contradiction the same persons would have to argue against one and for the other whilst using the same principle.NYPD Enforces COVID Vaccine Mandate, Arrests 5 Anti-Vaxxers At Burger King
A group of anti-vaxxers staged a protest inside a New York City Burger King, where they were promptly arrested after failing to show proof of vaccination.
There's some similarities we all can hopefully recognize here.
People protesting the enforcement, and giving the people tasked with enforcing it a hard time (often leading to heated confrontations that turned violent)...people citing 4th amendment objections to it, etc...
The principle being appealed to in both cases was: "If some things need to run just a little outside of a strict originalist view of certain constitutional concepts in order to enforce the thing that I think will make things more safe and feel more comfortable, that's a trade-off worth making"
No one claimed they did. They give people the right to remain silent and be safe in their effects.
