What’s the difference between a moral barrier and an immoral barrier

[redleghunter]

As all morality is.

Not all but we could discuss that on the Theology threads.

 

[Ringo84]

It’s not my argument. Nancy Pelosi said the barrier is immoral. Yet both parties voted for barriers in the past and they were built.

So do you want to address why barriers in general can be immoral?

She said that spending money on a wall that was neither wanted nor needed was immoral. To try to conclude that she meant that all walls everywhere are immoral is precisely the sort of ridiculous logical jump I mean. It's argument ad absurdum; not a serious proposal for why these "steel slats" are more important than federal worker pay.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

She said that spending money on a wall that was neither wanted nor needed was immoral. To try to conclude that she meant that all walls everywhere are immoral is precisely the sort of ridiculous logical jump I mean. It's argument ad absurdum; not a serious proposal for why these "steel slats" are more important than federal worker pay.
Ringo

Why were previous walls moral?

 

[grasping the after wind]

What's the difference between a good argument and a bad?

A good argument is able to recognize nuance and speak intelligently and cohesively to an issue that exists.

A bad arguments makes ridiculous logical jumps, putting words in one's opponents mouths that they use as a cudgel.

The OP is an example of the latter.
Ringo

Really? I would like you to explain how you came to that conclusion as I do not find it self evident.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why bother when you can just walk in and then get to a sanctuary city?

How about the fact if you get caught without the proper documentation you can be barred from a green card for like ten years?

 

[Ringo84]

Why were previous walls moral?

I don't recall Pelosi saying that. So once again, you seem to be trying to bash this
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*mFaLmIfBQFE9tK1LohcGsw.jpeg

...instead of addressing what Pelosi actually said.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Really? I would like you to explain how you came to that conclusion as I do not find it self evident.

Opposition to a costly and unnecessary vanity project does not equate to opposition to all walls everywhere. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to comprehend.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

I don't recall Pelosi saying that. So once again, you seem to be trying to bash this
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*mFaLmIfBQFE9tK1LohcGsw.jpeg

...instead of addressing what Pelosi actually said.
Ringo

You are avoiding the actual logical conclusion to her statements.

 

[mark kennedy]

She said that spending money on a wall that was neither wanted nor needed was immoral. To try to conclude that she meant that all walls everywhere are immoral is precisely the sort of ridiculous logical jump I mean. It's argument ad absurdum; not a serious proposal for why these "steel slats" are more important than federal worker pay.
Ringo

What gets me is that if Trump had managed to make a deal with regards to the DACA dreamers he would have gotten his wall. The problem isn't the wall, it's a lack of compromise.

 

[redleghunter]

Opposition to a costly and unnecessary vanity project does not equate to opposition to all walls everywhere. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to comprehend.
Ringo

It’s comprehended. But today the Speaker flat out refused to discuss border security at all. Obviously now border security in general is immoral.

 

[grasping the after wind]

She said that spending money on a wall that was neither wanted nor needed was immoral. To try to conclude that she meant that all walls everywhere are immoral is precisely the sort of ridiculous logical jump I mean. It's argument ad absurdum; not a serious proposal for why these "steel slats" are more important than federal worker pay.
Ringo

She asserted that a wall was immoral. Please tell us the how such a conclusion is rationally arrived at. Her personal opinion that such a wall is not needed or wanted does not equal a rational argument.

 

[Ringo84]

You are avoiding the actual logical conclusion to her statements.

Those are not the logical conclusions to her statements. If I said that I was going to put up a wall to block the waves from crashing on the beach, and you said that it was a ridiculous and stupid project, it would not follow that you meant to oppose all walls. It would mean that you thought my project was costly and dumb.

It really reeks of desperation to make this logic leap, the equivalent of the bone/satellite jump cut in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the argument moving forward. If this is the best you've got, then....Donny should give up now.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

It’s comprehended. But today the Speaker flat out refused to discuss border security at all. Obviously now border security in general is immoral.

Obviously not, since you keep making logical leaps about what she said.

She asserted that a wall was immoral. Please tell us the how such a conclusion is rationally arrived at. Her personal opinion that such a wall is not needed or wanted does not equal a rational argument.

Saying that Donny's wall is immoral, unnecessary and unneeded != all walls everywhere are immoral.
Ringo

 

[mark kennedy]

It’s comprehended. But today the Speaker flat out refused to discuss border security at all. Obviously now border security in general is immoral.

I'm not so sure because Trump had a deal on the table, he refused it and here we are. He has done this before and by Friday we are getting into an historic impasse over the budget. If we are going to talk morals, how about repeatedly giving your word and then reneging on the deal? Now I'm not saying the boarder security isn't important but a man is only as good as his word and he keeps saying one thing and doing another. Just saying...

 

[redleghunter]

What gets me is that if Trump had managed to make a deal with regards to the DACA dreamers he would have gotten his wall. The problem isn't the wall, it's a lack of compromise.

He actually offered roughly 800K of the the Dreamers for the wall last year. The counter was to include all of the Dreamers. He agreed if the Democrats agreed to expanded immigration reforms. The Democrats said no. So both could have been winners last year. The Democrats could have held up the reforms in parliamentary procedures in the Senate, the Dreamers would have had their just day and Trump would have had his wall.

I think they need to read the Art of the Deal.

 

[Ringo84]

He actually offered roughly 800K of the the Dreamers for the wall last year. The counter was to include all of the Dreamers. He agreed if the Democrats agreed to expanded immigration reforms. The Democrats said no. So both could have been winners last year. The Democrats could have held up the reforms in parliamentary procedures in the Senate, the Dreamers would have had their just day and Trump would have had his wall.

I think they need to read the Art of the Deal.

He offered that and then reneged on the deal:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/1/17185824/trump-daca-deal-immigration

Trump says DACA deal for young immigrants is off | Reuters

I think that Trump needs to read his own book. He's made himself famous partly on the legend of his "yuuuge deals, buh-lieve me" but has proven to be a terrible negotiator. That's one reason why this is a problem entirely of his making.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

Those are not the logical conclusions to her statements. If I said that I was going to put up a wall to block the waves from crashing on the beach, and you said that it was a ridiculous and stupid project, it would not follow that you meant to oppose all walls. It would mean that you thought my project was costly and dumb.

It really reeks of desperation to make this logic leap, the equivalent of the bone/satellite jump cut in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the argument moving forward. If this is the best you've got, then....Donny should give up now.
Ringo

By your logic Nancy Pelosi would believe a wall on the Northern border would be moral where there are no waves but gentle pond water, but where the waves really crash that’s immoral on the Southern border.

Yeah that makes sense.

 

[redleghunter]

Saying that Donny's wall is immoral, unnecessary and unneeded != all walls everywhere are immoral.

So where are walls moral? In places Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer say so?

 

[Ringo84]

By your logic Nancy Pelosi would believe a wall on the Northern border would be moral where there are no waves but gentle pond water, but where the waves really crash that’s immoral on the Southern border.

Yeah that makes sense.

That is not "my logic". You seem to be either having a problem comprehending words, or you're deliberately misstating arguments because you don't have any.

When "steel slats" are neither wanted by border agents (What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)) nor warranted by the facts on the ground (Why the Wall Won't Work), then throwing $5 billion dollars in the commode to protect Donny's fragile little ego is immoral - especially when that project comes at the expense of federal workers.
Ringo

 

[mark kennedy]

He actually offered roughly 800K of the the Dreamers for the wall last year. The counter was to include all of the Dreamers. He agreed if the Democrats agreed to expanded immigration reforms. The Democrats said no. So both could have been winners last year. The Democrats could have held up the reforms in parliamentary procedures in the Senate, the Dreamers would have had their just day and Trump would have had his wall.

I think they need to read the Art of the Deal.

I don't know Red:

The president has never actually made a coherent, affirmative argument for why he canceled the Executive branch program that had allowed Dreamers to apply for temporary work permits. When his administration ended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals last year, it claimed to being do so as a legal necessity: While Trump had “great heart” for the Dreamers, it was simply unconstitutional to protect them from deportation without congressional approval.

The problem with this argument, as federal judges eventually noticed, is that “deferred action has been blessed by both the the Supreme Court and Congress as a means to exercise enforcement discretion” and embraced by presidents of both parties for decades. Further, the specific features of DACA, such as work permits, are explicitly allowed under current law. (Notably, in other contexts, the Trump administration has shown little reluctance to assert the Executive branch’s immense discretion over immigration policy.) (Trump: The Dreamers Are My Hostages – But the Wall Is Not My Ransom. Intelligencer)
​

The way I get it he had a deal and simply blew it up.