Randomness thread, part two.

[OngBonga]

Too bad their chief export is cucks.

Actually our chief export is all those words you used, with the exception of "cuck".

[OngBonga]

Oh wait, "cuck" comes from "cuckold", and old Shakespearian word. Well fuck me.

It means a man whose wife has sex with someone else.

[OngBonga]

https://www.bustle.com/articles/1954...ive-term-often

The implicit racism — being cheated on is bad enough, but being cheated on with a black man is uniquely awful — displays the quintessential blend of hyper-masculinity and White Nationalism that is signature alt-right.

Well, either the author of this article has completely missed the point, or she's deliberately omitting the point.

It's not that it's worse for your wife to fuck a black man, it's worse for you to welcome into your home the man who fucks your wife.

It's a fitting anaology. I might use this word more often.

[CoccoBill]

It means a man whose wife has sex with someone else.

That would technically speaking make men in polyamorous relationships cucks, no?

[spoonitnow]

https://www.bustle.com/articles/1954...ive-term-often



Well, either the author of this article has completely missed the point, or she's deliberately omitting the point.

It's not that it's worse for your wife to fuck a black man, it's worse for you to welcome into your home the man who fucks your wife.

It's a fitting anaology. I might use this word more often.

Bustle lol

She's going with a common "talking point" that some people on the left use over the whole thing to try to tie it to race, mostly because so much cuckold fetish porn is a white couple with a black guy. The roots of that even go back to the slave days, but it has little to do with the rise of cuck as an insult.

The bold is the point of how cuck is used as an insult so freely, particularly in politics. It largely means someone who welcomes the betraying of their own interests and ideals, much like the left welcomes completely fucking up the goddamn country, fewer restrictions on immigration, the personification of white guilt, etc.

That would technically speaking make men in polyamorous relationships cucks, no?

When sticking with the strict definition and not the wider one used in the political realm noted above, if they are committed to a woman who is having sex with other men, then yes. If you're just fuck buddies with some girl who is fucking other guys, then that does not fall under the definition since it has to happen from within a committed relationship. The woman having sex with other women also doesn't create a cuckold.

On a larger level, it's understood to mean that you're providing for a woman who is having sex with other men. You don't even really need to be having sex with her (eg: a marriage with a dead bedroom) for it to qualify.

Fun fact: Within the polyamorous community, which is extremely left-leaning (big fucking surprise there), you get completely shit on if you're in relationships with multiple women who are committed to you and who do not have sex with other men. They have a term for it called a "one penis policy" or OPP for short, and a lot of people go so far as to say it's abusive.

The female term is cuckquean. In cuckquean scenarios where the man is boning other women, the other women are often referred to a cuckcakes (just confirming I did not make this up).

[OngBonga]

Bustle lol

I had no idea who bustle were before I took a random link by googling "cuck", but based on this one article, I'm inclined to agree with your comment here.

[wufwugy]

The female term is cuckquean. In cuckquean scenarios where the man is boning other women, the other women are often referred to a cuckcakes (just confirming I did not make this up).

Rome fell for a reason.

[spoonitnow]

Rome fell for a reason.

Yeah because Europe is cuck central.

[CoccoBill]

The only thing good about the US is beer, but that's no reason to move there.

[BananaStand]

The only thing good about the US is beer, but that's no reason to move there.

Please take this message to Mexico

[CoccoBill]

Please take this message to Mexico

Oh I'm speaking from a place with access to most beer in the world, I'm not sure if it applies to them.

[BananaStand]

Oh I'm speaking from a place with access to most beer in the world, I'm not sure if it applies to them.

My comment was less about beer and more about discouraging people from moving to America.

[CoccoBill]

Yes, but they'd have plenty of skin in the game to come hunt for some quality brews.

[BananaStand]

Yes, but they'd have plenty of skin in the game to come hunt for some quality brews.

No, this would NOT be skin in the game. The consequence, disincentive, of failing of failing on this adventure is that you end up in America, getting free health care, free food, and a free pass from law enforcement. That's not much of a disincentive.

If the consequence were arrest, prosecution, incarceration, and ultimately deportation....THEN there would be skin in the game that might compel these brew-seekers to get visas, avoid criminal behavior, and return to their home country when required to do so.

[spoonitnow]

No, this would NOT be skin in the game. The consequence, disincentive, of failing of failing on this adventure is that you end up in America, getting free health care, free food, and a free pass from law enforcement. That's not much of a disincentive.

If the consequence were arrest, prosecution, incarceration, and ultimately deportation....THEN there would be skin in the game that might compel these brew-seekers to get visas, avoid criminal behavior, and return to their home country when required to do so.

Correct.

[spoonitnow]

Did the Valentine's Day thing early since we're going to be super busy through the middle of the week.

White wrapper alert.

[spoonitnow]

Anyone who sucks at chess interested in getting better? I'm thinking about putting together a channel on Discord with some basic endgame lessons, etc.

[wufwugy]

Transgenderism is rooted in homophobia.

[spoonitnow]

Transgenderism is rooted in homophobia.

I've seen this argument in various forms, and I agree that some non-zero percentage of it probably is, but I don't think it's a dominating factor.

I do, however, think a dominating factor is the very serious drop in testosterone in men of the same age over time.

[wufwugy]

I've seen this argument in various forms, and I agree that some non-zero percentage of it probably is, but I don't think it's a dominating factor.

I do, however, think a dominating factor is the very serious drop in testosterone in men of the same age over time.

God, I agree. The fucking implications.

Like I said, Rome fell for a reason.

[CoccoBill]

No, this would NOT be skin in the game. The consequence, disincentive, of failing of failing on this adventure is that you end up in America, getting free health care, free food, and a free pass from law enforcement. That's not much of a disincentive.

If the consequence were arrest, prosecution, incarceration, and ultimately deportation....THEN there would be skin in the game that might compel these brew-seekers to get visas, avoid criminal behavior, and return to their home country when required to do so.

On a serious note, I would think incentives and disincentives are subjective rather than universal. For me, for example, finding quality brews would be a bigger incentive than receiving benefits. I'm absolutely positive there are a large number of people in Mexico who would think the same. You're equating a whole nation to a stereotype of poor, uneducated gold-diggers. I don't think it would have been acceptable to throw around derogatory comments like that before Drumpf normalized it.

[BananaStand]

I'm really glad I learned the term "COLONIZED" this week. Because ^this is it.

On a serious note

I was totally serious

I would think incentives and disincentives are subjective rather than universal.

No, the incentives and disincentives are objective things tied to a stated goal (the game), which may or may not be subjective.

For me, for example, finding quality brews would be a bigger incentive than receiving benefits

In your case "the game" is tourism. What about people who AREN'T coming to this country for the guided tour?? What do you think their game is??

I'm absolutely positive there are a large number of people in Mexico who would think the same

Sure, and none of those people are trying to permanently move to America.

You're equating a whole nation to a stereotype of poor, uneducated gold-diggers. I don't think it would have been acceptable to throw around derogatory comments like that before Drumpf normalized it.

COLONIZED!!!

Dude, Mexico isn't exactly a third world country. If you're a Mexican, with an education, a job, and a clean criminal record, then you're doing just fine, and probably have no aspirations to move to America. And if you do, then your education, trade skills, and clean criminal record will allow you to come to America legally. You wouldn't risk coming to America illegally, because the consequence of committing a crime like that will fuck up your prosperity. SKIN IN THE GAME.

So I'm not stereotyping a whole nation of people. I'm stereotyping the people who leave that nation. And it's accurate.

You've fallen for the progressive rhetoric that wants you to believe that these are all great people. They're all hard workers with skills and motivation to be productive. you've fallen for the narrative that says any challenge to this assertion is racism. You've been programmed to ignore every single objective study on the issue and every statistical analysis that says illegal immigrants are a net loss economically for America. You are COLONIZED.

If you're one of those people who says "America is a nation of immigrants" or "America was founded on immigration", or echoes any of the other completely ignorant progressive talking points....then you need to be hit in the head with a frying pan.

That's the BS that was "normalized" under Clinton and Obama. Trump is just bringing the narrative back to reality. That's not derogatory. And if you think it is, then stay the fuck out of America.

[CoccoBill]

You're wrong on so many levels that it's gonna take me a while to reply.

[OngBonga]

Dude, Mexico isn't exactly a third world country. If you're a Mexican, with an education, a job, and a clean criminal record, then you're doing just fine, and probably have no aspirations to move to America. And if you do, then your education, trade skills, and clean criminal record will allow you to come to America legally. You wouldn't risk coming to America illegally, because the consequence of committing a crime like that will fuck up your prosperity. SKIN IN THE GAME.

So I'm not stereotyping a whole nation of people. I'm stereotyping the people who leave that nation. And it's accurate.

You've fallen for the progressive rhetoric that wants you to believe that these are all great people. They're all hard workers with skills and motivation to be productive. you've fallen for the narrative that says any challenge to this assertion is racism. You've been programmed to ignore every single objective study on the issue and every statistical analysis that says illegal immigrants are a net loss economically for America. You are COLONIZED.

This could be the most accurate collection of words that banana has posted here.

[BananaStand]

You're wrong on so many levels that it's gonna take me a while to reply.

cant wait bro

[spoonitnow]

This could be the most accurate collection of words that banana has posted here.

Welcome to the dark side. We have things like reason, logic and fact here.

[CoccoBill]

No, the incentives and disincentives are objective things tied to a stated goal (the game), which may or may not be subjective.

They're absolutely not objective, they're based on personal goals, values and preferences, just like the "game".

In your case "the game" is tourism. What about people who AREN'T coming to this country for the guided tour?? What do you think their game is??

I was not talking about tourism, and even if I were, what does that have to do with anything. No question mark.

Sure, and none of those people are trying to permanently move to America.

I thought you though we were talking about tourism.

Dude, Mexico isn't exactly a third world country. If you're a Mexican, with an education, a job, and a clean criminal record, then you're doing just fine,

Fine so far, you can pretty much replace "Mexican" with any nationality on or off the planet.

and probably have no aspirations to move to America.

Utter nonsense, even though this is quickly changing. The US has for a long time been the most desired country for global work-based immigration, but this year the vote dropped from 34% to 30%.

So I'm not stereotyping a whole nation of people. I'm stereotyping the people who leave that nation. And it's accurate.

Yes you are, and no it's not. There's twice as many legally immigrated Mexicans in the US than illegal ones. You're not even close to accurate.

You've fallen for the progressive rhetoric that wants you to believe that these are all great people. They're all hard workers with skills and motivation to be productive. you've fallen for the narrative that says any challenge to this assertion is racism. You've been programmed to ignore every single objective study on the issue and every statistical analysis that says illegal immigrants are a net loss economically for America. You are COLONIZED.

Someone has clearly fallen for some kind of rhetoric.

If you're one of those people who says "America is a nation of immigrants" or "America was founded on immigration", or echoes any of the other completely ignorant progressive talking points....then you need to be hit in the head with a frying pan.

No of course North America has been colonized by white rednecks since the dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

That's the BS that was "normalized" under Clinton and Obama. Trump is just bringing the narrative back to reality. That's not derogatory. And if you think it is, then stay the fuck out of America.

Bro dude mate, I'll keep coming to America any time I please, which is not often.

[spoonitnow]

There's twice as many legally immigrated Mexicans in the US than illegal ones.

I hope you realize how insanely high the number of Mexicans who are in this country illegal happens to be based on what you just said here.

I also hope you realize that every single one of them are criminals. That's somewhere in the range of five or six million people. That's in the range of 1.5 to 2 percent of all of the people in the entire fucking United States.

[CoccoBill]

It could be 9 million illegals to 1 million legals, it still shouldn't make it ok to classify all Mexicans as illegals, or social parasites, or criminals, or whatever. They aren't. I would hope everyone realized that, but these days that's clearly too much to ask.

[BananaStand]

They're absolutely not objective, they're based on personal goals, values and preferences, just like the "game".

I really don't wanna go down this rabbit hole with you where you get to bend the definition of subjective and objective. If a person relocates to America illegally, their objective incentives have measurable monetary value. Higher pay, no taxes, welfare. Their objective disincentives are prison and deportation. That's all I have to say on the matter. If you think any of that is debatable, it's because you're colonized.

I was not talking about tourism, and even if I were, what does that have to do with anything. No question mark.

Yes you were. There is most definitely a difference between visiting this country and going on a brewery tour, and moving here permanently without going through the proper legal channels. If you're suggesting that someone might be incentivized to move to America permanently because of our enticing offering of assorted beers, then you've taken this conversation into the realm absurd. Continue on your own.

I thought you though we were talking about tourism.

I'm sure it looks that way when viewed fro the realm of the absurd. Moving on....

Fine so far, you can pretty much replace "Mexican" with any nationality on or off the planet.

We could. But at last check, there weren't floods of gang members and drugs coming over the Canada, Poland, Australia, or India.

Utter nonsense, even though this is quickly changing. The US has for a long time been the most desired country for global work-based immigration, but this year the vote dropped from 34% to 30%

The point I was obviously making was "why would a successful Mexican want to leave Mexico?". If you're suggesting that every Mexican should want to leave Mexico, then what the fuck is wrong with Mexico?? If it's a shithole economy run by a corrupt government and oppressed by drug cartels, then it's on the Mexican citizens to do something about it. Same goes for any other country you want to name.

As an aside, if the statistics you cite are true, and I believe they are, then maybe it's time to wonder if these socialist economic models around the world are really working.

Yes you are, and no it's not. There's twice as many legally immigrated Mexicans in the US than illegal ones. You're not even close to accurate.

That's an astonishingly frightening statistic. 2 to 1!!???? It should be 50 to 1! My point is made.

Someone has clearly fallen for some kind of rhetoric.

Stop it. it hurts my eyes to roll them that much.

This is a disgusting last resort tactic of the progressive left. It doesn't matter how sound, logical, and fact-based your position is, they can still tear you down by calling you brainwashed. It's disgusting because it's an insulting ad-hominem argument. And it's a last resort because they have absolutely no answer to the central question "How do open borders help America??".

If you can answer that question with something other than the misguided chestnut of "This nation was built on immigration", then I'm all ears. Tell me, how is the average American going to benefit from allowing unrestricted immigration to this country. Every objective analysis on the matter has concluded that an illegal immigrant is a net loss economically. Every objective analysis that concludes otherwise has conveniently chosen to disregard the cost of Medicaid for dependent children, citing the fact that they are citizens, and not illegal immigrants. That's flat out bullshit.

No of course North America has been colonized by white rednecks since the dinosaurs 6000 years ago.

there's that misguided chestnut.

Bro dude mate, I'll keep coming to America any time I please, which is not often.

Fine. come every week for all I care. Just leave before your visa expires. Surely that's fair, right?

[BananaStand]

That's somewhere in the range of five or six million people. That's in the range of 1.5 to 2 percent of all of the people in the entire fucking United States.

Double it.

Almost every single instance where I've heard someone cite the number of illegal immigrants in the US, it's been 11-12 million.

[BananaStand]

it still shouldn't make it ok to classify all Mexicans as illegals, or social parasites, or criminals, or whatever.

No one said that. That's what you WISH we had said so you can invalidate our arguments as racist. Nice try comrade.

However, it is ok to classify the vast majority of Mexicans who either can't, or choose not to, come into America legally as illegals, social parasites, criminals, or whatever.

Why would an educated, skilled, english-speaking, law abiding, productive, talented, hard working Mexican need to sneak into America illegally rather than immigrate through the appropriate channels??

[spoonitnow]

It could be 9 million illegals to 1 million legals, it still shouldn't make it ok to classify all Mexicans as illegals, or social parasites, or criminals, or whatever. They aren't. I would hope everyone realized that, but these days that's clearly too much to ask.

It's pretty ridiculous that you'd even start to think that anyone said that. It shows a basic disconnect with reality and the words that are on a screen in front of you. If you really believe anyone here was saying that, then I suggest you make your way to a mental health facility pronto to get checked out.

Every one of the Mexicans who are in the United States illegally, however, are criminals.

Double it.

Almost every single instance where I've heard someone cite the number of illegal immigrants in the US, it's been 11-12 million.

Mexicans are only around one-half of the illegal immigrants in the US right now, which comes in around 5.5 million. It's worth noting that people from Central America and South America make up a substantial portion as well, but I'm talking about just Mexicans from Mexico.

[BananaStand]

Speaking of misguided chestnuts. I want to pre-emptively remind everyone that every single occupation that exists in the American economy is staffed by a majority of American citizens.

There is no such thing as a job that an American will not do.

[CoccoBill]

Me: "The only thing good about the US is beer, but that's no reason to move there."
BS: "Please take this message to Mexico"

Now, obviously I meant tourism by moving, right? And BS was clearly only talking about illegal Mexicans in America, not a broad statement about Mexico. What's next, BS claims he never said that? Talking with you gets so boring so fast.

[BananaStand]

For me, for example, finding quality brews would be a bigger incentive than receiving benefits. I'm absolutely positive there are a large number of people in Mexico who would think the same.

Tourism

[BananaStand]

once again, the question is "how do open borders help america?"

[wufwugy]

It could be 9 million illegals to 1 million legals, it still shouldn't make it ok to classify all Mexicans as illegals, or social parasites, or criminals, or whatever. They aren't. I would hope everyone realized that, but these days that's clearly too much to ask.

Somebody classified all Mexicans like that?

[wufwugy]

I've been trying to wrap my head around why there is a large minority of popular support for illegal aliens. I think it has to do with the worldview that people are inherently good and inherently equal.

The vast majority of people in the US, even those on the far right, are very supportive of immigration. We just believe it's a good idea to make it legal and be selective. A tragedy caused by the minority popular support for illegal aliens is that we're probably getting less immigration than we would if there wasn't support for illegal aliens.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Welcome to the dark side. We have things like reason, logic and fact here.

This represents the crux of why the conversations here are not changing anything or anyone.

You have chosen your side to be the one of "reason, logic and fact" which means you've chosen your opposition to be people who ignore those things, aka idiots.
This choice to argue with idiots is separate to arguing politics. Of course, if you choose idiots as your political adversaries, you can toot your own horn all day without ever challenging your own views by confronting them with intelligent criticisms.

This choice does not represent your political adversaries best speakers, merely a 'tarded subset of that political leaning. Just as there are plenty of idiots on your own party's side who ignore reason, logic, and fact, there are plenty of those on the other side.

Anyone who chooses to argue with idiots when there are intelligent people to argue with is a blowhard who likes to hear their own thoughts out loud, but who is too much of a coward to entertain a conversation with someone intelligent enough to cite the subtlety and nuance of human affairs.

Summary: Stop being a coward and give yourself the credit to learn and grow when confronted with intelligent people with whom you disagree. Leave the idiots to their idiot games, and seek out people who are smart enough to challenge you. Anything less is intellectual cowardice.

[BananaStand]

Summary: Stop being a coward and give yourself the credit to learn and grow when confronted with intelligent people with whom you disagree. Leave the idiots to their idiot games, and seek out people who are smart enough to challenge you. Anything less is intellectual cowardice.

Is this you volunteering to use intelligence and an understanding of the subtlety and nuance of human affairs to answer the question at the center of this debate...

How does illegal immigration help America??

[MadMojoMonkey]

Is this you volunteering to use intelligence and an understanding of the subtlety and nuance of human affairs to answer the question at the center of this debate...

I do my best to bring intelligence and a sense of humility for what I understand assuredly not being all there is to understand, but I don't really care about this issue.

How does illegal immigration help America??

Thank you for illustrating my point. This is a loaded question, already forcing your responder to assume an unsupportable position.

Illegal anything helps the industrial prison complex, I suppose, but I don't think that's what anyone is discussing, here.

[BananaStand]

Thank you for illustrating my point. This is a loaded question, already forcing your responder to assume an unsupportable position.

Everything in that sentence is false. Just the fact that sanctuary city policies exist proves this. But I'll play along and rephrase

How do open borders help America?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Everything in that sentence is false.

Thank you for again illustrating my point.

It is a loaded question because it presupposed that illegal activity of any sort "helps America."
It forces the responder to assume an unsupportable position because the question has something untrue as an implicit statement.

The only sensible answer is that the prison system gains by criminalizing arbitrary behaviors. If people are doing criminal things, that supports the prison system.

How do open borders help America?

I don't know how/whether they do.
I've seen no reliable evidence of any nation that truly had open borders, so I don't see how any answer to this question could be other than speculation.

I've never taken a side either way about immigration other than to hold that at least some of the stuff that goes on in the name of protecting our borders treats people inhumanely, and that, at the very least, should be fixed.

The American court system is thoroughly flawed, and asserting that the border control portions of it are not is Unicorn Land talk.

[BananaStand]

Thank you for again illustrating my point.

No sir, thank you for illustrating mine, and consequently, Spoon's

You talk of intellectual cowardice. I would argue that there are cases (this immigration argument being one) where intelligent opposition does not exist. The question has been posed several times already. "how do open borders help america?". No one has yet to present an intelligent response to that question. And this isn't just true of this forum. It's true across the entirety of national discourse on this issue.

Essentially, there are two attempts at an answer. One says "I have a Venezualan pool boy and he's the hardest working guy I know". That's a sample size fail. The other one says "My great-grand uncle Cletus came over Andorra in 1918 and that turned out fine". That argument fails because it doesn't account for the fact that immigrants in the early 20th century had skin in the game, and that immigrants in the early 21st century, don't.

I don't know how/whether they do.
I've seen no reliable evidence of any nation that truly had open borders, so I don't see how any answer to this question could be other than speculation.

You've lived in America throughout times where we have had a porous southern border, unrestricted chain migration, and a non-merit based visa lottery system. Do you support continuing those policies, or reforming them? I support reforming them because of crime, drugs, terrorism, and the unanimous conclusions of every objective analysis that says illegal immigrants are a net loss for the economy. If you are against reform, I would simply ask you to explain "why". Anything less is intellectual cowardice.

If you insist on being a semantic stickler, I'll rephrase the question yet again.

"how does a sanctuary city policy help America"

And this goes further to my point about there not being an intellectual opposition. That's why my original question was not loaded. Sanctuary cities exist. There are people who are presumably NOT idiots, who are responsible for governing and public policy. And these people have decided that it would be best for their city if they flouted federal statutes, and disobeyed lawful requests from federal authorities.

Why? What is their intellectual, fact-based, logical, non-idiotic explanation for this??

Usually it's one of the two arguments I cited above. But as I explained above, both are illogical and decidedly not intellectual. Does that mean that these policy-makers are idiots? Does that mean that simple logic and basic facts elude them? How can that be given where they are and how they got there???

They are not idiots. They are not illogical. They do not lack intellect. It's just that their true motives are too sinister and perverse to vocalize. So they rely on strawman tactics to villainize and discredit the other side. Rather than provide fact-based justification for unrestricted immigration, they simply accuse anyone against such a policy of being a racist. This is the ugliness of the strategy of identity politics espoused by the progressive left. It doesn't have to be logical, fact based, or intellectual to be effective.

So I don't think Spoon is way off when he claims that one side has a logical fact-based argument, and the other side doesn't. That doesn't make the other side idiots. And challenging their false motivations in order to expose their real ones is NOT intellectual cowardice.

EDIT: Need an illustration, read this thread. CoccoBill presented the tired liberal talking points in favor of unrestricted immigration. When challenged, he TWICE accused the other side of racism (post 25373 and 25381).

[BananaStand]

It is a loaded question because it presupposed that illegal activity of any sort "helps America."
It forces the responder to assume an unsupportable position because the question has something untrue as an implicit statement.

BTW, this is flimsy.

What if I asked "Is criminal vigilantism good for Gotham City?"

That is clearly a situation where illegal activity had beneficial results.

I'm not asking you to prove to me that illegal immigration is a net overall good thing. Just tell me what benefits, if any, America receives as a result of illegal immigration. It doesn't matter if they are outweighed by any other negative results at this point. I'm just asking if there is any upside to unrestricted immigration policy that can be supported by fact, logic, or anything non-idiotic.

How does illegal immigration help America

[MadMojoMonkey]

...?
So my lack of taking any interest in this is indicative to you that people I don't speak for are wrong?
... and I'm the idiot, here?

OK. You do you. You can pretend that you're arguing with me, but you're not. I've not said those things you're arguing against.
If you have questions for CoccoBill, then he is the one to answer them, not me. He doesn't speak for me, nor I for him.
Furthermore, he doesn't speak for anyone but himself, anyway.

Aside from that, you stipulate that people who make decisions which you disagree with are intelligent, but that their decisions are motivated by {sinister / perverse} ambitions.
This is no different than asserting that they are not intelligent, at its base. You're attempting to discredit their ideas based not on the ideas, but on a character assassination.
That's a logical fallacy called ad hominem, when you attack a person and not their argument.

***
FWIW, with a grain of salt becuase I truly don't care about this issue, and I don't think it matters to America one way or another, just like every other issue that gets argued about in the public arena. The thing is that both parties agree on a whole hell of a lot, but that stuff doesn't require any arguing or hashing out to resolve. So all we see in the news is the extended disagreements about trivial things which bear little to no impact on the path of progress for America. There's some good and some bad to all of these suggested resolutions, and either side asserting that their answer has the lockdown on good is full of their own shit. Again, their political adversaries are not idiots, and if the answer was verifiably correct, there'd be no arguing over it.

I'm in favor of reforming America's border control policy in many ways. One of them is to end the sham of pretending that there are anywhere near enough law enforcement and judicial services at our disposal to enforce current laws, and we need to pull our heads out of our tail ends and stop mandating things we know we can't accomplish. Either allot enough money in a budget alongside the laws such that the requirements of the legislation have any hope of being executed, or eliminate any law which cannot be enforced due to budgetary reasons, regardless of how good the law sounds. If that law is truly that good, then pay for it to work, or stop paying for bad laws so there's money for good laws. 'Nuff said.

Another way is to dramatically rethink what we consider allowable as far as migrational workers. Still another is to recognize that shit happens, and separating families is probably a net negative for everyone involved on whatever sides of whatever border.

The assertion that all illegal immigrants are one thing (good for society or bad for society) is stupid. Just like each of our families, there's plenty of good and bad.
If either side of the argument is trying to convince you toward one of these extremes, then they are playing the fool, and begging you to join them. Don't take that bait.

[spoonitnow]

This represents the crux of why the conversations here are not changing anything or anyone.

You have chosen your side to be the one of "reason, logic and fact" which means you've chosen your opposition to be people who ignore those things, aka idiots.
This choice to argue with idiots is separate to arguing politics. Of course, if you choose idiots as your political adversaries, you can toot your own horn all day without ever challenging your own views by confronting them with intelligent criticisms.

This choice does not represent your political adversaries best speakers, merely a 'tarded subset of that political leaning. Just as there are plenty of idiots on your own party's side who ignore reason, logic, and fact, there are plenty of those on the other side.

Anyone who chooses to argue with idiots when there are intelligent people to argue with is a blowhard who likes to hear their own thoughts out loud, but who is too much of a coward to entertain a conversation with someone intelligent enough to cite the subtlety and nuance of human affairs.

Summary: Stop being a coward and give yourself the credit to learn and grow when confronted with intelligent people with whom you disagree. Leave the idiots to their idiot games, and seek out people who are smart enough to challenge you. Anything less is intellectual cowardice.

I'm going to give you a pass because you don't know any better, but you didn't look at the context of what you're replying to at all and are instead expanding it so far that you're behaving like a caricature of yourself.

Edit: Fixed a comma.

[BananaStand]

Aside from that, you stipulate that people who make decisions which you disagree with are intelligent, but that their decisions are motivated by {sinister / perverse} ambitions.

Right

This is no different than asserting that they are not intelligent, at its base. You're attempting to discredit their ideas based not on the ideas, but on a character assassination.

How can I discredit their ideas if I don't know what they are?? I'm begging for an answer. How does unrestricted immigration help America???

That's a logical fallacy called ad hominem, when you attack a person and not their argument.

It's not ad hominem if I'm attacking the person for not having an argument.

[BananaStand]

...?
So my lack of taking any interest in this is indicative to you that people I don't speak for are wrong?
... and I'm the idiot, here?

I'm not sure how you could be thinking this based on anything I've said.

OK. You do you. You can pretend that you're arguing with me, but you're not. I've not said those things you're arguing against.

I didn't say you did. What you did say was that asserting your own argument as factual automatically insinuates that the other side is idiotic. You went on to say that arguing with idiots in intellectually cowardly. I merely posited the possibility that they aren't idiots.

You suggest that arguments can only exist as Logic/Facts vs Idiocy or Logic/Facts vs Alternate Logic/Facts. I'm saying that there is a third possibility. Logic/Facts vs. Lies & Deception.

I'm asking you how engaging in that third debate could be considered intellectually cowardly??

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm going to give you a pass because you don't know any better, but you didn't look at the context of what you're replying to at all and are instead expanding it so far that you're behaving like a caricature of yourself.

Edit: Fixed a comma.

More BS character assassination ad hominem tripe.

I know the context. It's on this page.

Nanners said some stuff that started out as fact based, then trailed off into aggressive nonsense full of character assessments.
Ong replied that it is the most accurate thing he's said on this forum. (Note, that's a pretty low bar, so maybe I actually agree with Ong)
Spoon replied that Nanners position represents a greater POV based on facts and reason.

The first 2 paragraphs in that post are not bad, but the third is fact-free asshattery.

Your endorsement of that kind of talk as fact- or reason-based is where the discussion ends.

[BananaStand]

I'm in favor of reforming America's border control policy in many ways. One of them is to end the sham of pretending that there are anywhere near enough law enforcement and judicial services at our disposal to enforce current laws, and we need to pull our heads out of our tail ends and stop mandating things we know we can't accomplish.

Or....what if we simply reduced the workload for law enforcement and judicial services??? Then we would have enough law enforcement and judicial services at our disposal to enforce current laws.

Like what if there was a giant wall doing the work of border patrol agents? what if there were decidedly less people pouring over the border and clogging up our courts?

Another way is to dramatically rethink what we consider allowable as far as migrational workers.

I'm not clear here, are you advocating an increase, or decrease to the number of allowable workers??

Still another is to recognize that shit happens, and separating families is probably a net negative for everyone involved on whatever sides of whatever border.

This is a misunderstanding of the issue. Progressives want to end the use of the term "chain migration" in favor of the term "family reunification". Let that sink in for a minute and then ask yourself....why does the family need to be 're-unified'? Presumably, it was DE-unified when a member of that family packed up and moved to America. So why is now America's responsibility to 're-unify' that family by allowing Mom, Sis, and Uncle Jorge to come to America too??

For the zillionth time....why is that a good thing for America???

The assertion that all illegal immigrants are one thing (good for society or bad for society) is stupid. Just like each of our families, there's plenty of good and bad. If either side of the argument is trying to convince you toward one of these extremes, then they are playing the fool, and begging you to join them. Don't take that bait.

Pollyanna stuff.

The assertion that all illegal immigrants are lawbreakers is TRUE. And it's also TRUE that crime is bad for society.

[BananaStand]

The first 2 paragraphs in that post are not bad, but the third is fact-free asshattery.

COLONIZED!!

[BananaStand]

The first 2 paragraphs in that post are not bad, but the third is fact-free asshattery.

Your endorsement of that kind of talk as fact- or reason-based is where the discussion ends.

How long does a question about the upside of open borders have to go un-answered before it's reasonable to assume that there isn't an answer?

And if there isn't an answer, why are people still advocating for open borders??

How long should a person bear witness to this contradiction before seeking an explanation??

How long should a person accept a lack of explanation before they try to deduce their own explanation??

And how can the result of that fact-based deductive reasoning be considered "asshattery"?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not sure how you could be thinking this based on anything I've said.

Banana: Why is that? Most people say A or B. A and B are bad reasons.
Me: I never said A or B, so you're not arguing against anything I've said.
Bananana: I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing with you.
Me: Why are you arguing against points I haven't made, then acting surprised when I point out that you're not arguing against anything I've said?

What you did say was that it was asserting your own argument as factual automatically insinuates that the other side is idiotic. You went on to say that arguing with idiots in intellectually cowardly. I merely posited the possibility that they aren't idiots.

I didn't say that asserting your argument is [anything]. I said that asserting your side is the one of reason is folly.

If they aren't idiots, then why do you treat them like they are?
E.g. Saying "Stop, my sides hurt from laughing" when someone is explaining their POV to you is simply asking for them to tune you out. Whether or not they're intelligent, you've treated them like an idiot, and therefore shut them out of the conversation, and invite only idiots to continue.

You suggest that arguments can only exist as Logic/Facts vs Idiocy or Logic/Facts vs Alternate Logic/Facts. I'm saying that there is a third possibility. Logic/Facts vs. Lies & Deception.

I'm asking you how engaging in that third debate could be considered intellectually cowardly??

I did not suggest that. I didn't mention any of those options except the first.

To answer your question:
There are dozens of ways in which that could be considered intellectually cowardly, but I don't embrace any of them, so once again, your loaded question exposes more about your intent to assign ideas to people than your desire to learn which of your own ideas may need revision.

[BananaStand]

Banana: Why is that? Most people say A or B. A and B are bad reasons.
Me: I never said A or B, so you're not arguing against anything I've said.
Bananana: I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing with you.
Me: Why are you arguing against points I haven't made, then acting surprised when I point out that you're not arguing against anything I've said?

You obviously missed what I said prior to that.

Literally the sentence that directly preceded that exchange I said

No one has yet to present an intelligent response to that question. And this isn't just true of this forum. It's true across the entirety of national discourse on this issue

[MadMojoMonkey]

Or....what if we simply reduced the workload for law enforcement and judicial services??? Then we would have enough law enforcement and judicial services at our disposal to enforce current laws.

You mean the thing I suggested in the next sentence? Sounds like a workable plan.

Like what if there was a giant wall doing the work of border patrol agents? what if there were decidedly less people pouring over the border and clogging up our courts?

Historically, exactly 0 walls have proven successful measures at accomplishing any possible goal of having a wall.

Great Wall of China? Didn't prevent the Mongol Hoards from killing 90% of all Chinese people.
Berlin Wall? The whole world threw a party when it came down.
Any wall without constant personnel? Thwarted by a ladder.

Other than that, it sounds great.

I'm not clear here, are you advocating an increase, or decrease to the number of allowable workers??

I know this will come as a shock to you, but the reason it's not clear is because I haven't offered my opinion on the matter.

Reason: It's not a big deal. People are getting all worked up over trivialities. I have no emotional investment in this issue. My only guideline is "Don't be a jerk." and it applies to immigrants and border control workers alike.

This is a misunderstanding of the issue. Progressives want to end the use of the term "chain migration" in favor of the term "family reunification". Let that sink in for a minute and then ask yourself....why does the family need to be 're-unified'? Presumably, it was DE-unified when a member of that family packed up and moved to America. So why is now America's responsibility to 're-unify' that family by allowing Mom, Sis, and Uncle Jorge to come to America too??

I've never made any of these assertions and asking me to guess why other people think what they do is a recipe for nonsense.
Ask a progressive. I don't think I'd count myself as a progressive on border control.

Your presumptions are exactly that. Take them with a grain of salt while you research the actual facts in the various cases which lead you to these questions.

For the zillionth time....why is that a good thing for America???

For the zillionth time, I never said it was!!! Who are you talking to???

Pollyanna stuff.

The assertion that all illegal immigrants are lawbreakers is TRUE. And it's also TRUE that crime is bad for society.

The first part is true, but the 2nd simply lacks creativity, and weighs heavily on the absurd assumption that all laws are good and just.

[BananaStand]

I didn't say that asserting your argument is [anything]. I said that asserting your side is the one of reason is folly.

Except it isn't folly. In this case the debate exists between Logic/Facts and Lies/Deception. Reason only fits on one side of that equation.

If they aren't idiots, then why do you treat them like they are?

Who are you talking about??? Who has presented a non-idiotic argument in support of unrestricted immigration???

Have I not asked the question several times??? Have I not begged for an answer??

If there is an argument for unrestricted, non-merit based immigration policy that uses reason, facts, and logic, then you can be SURE that I will be the first one in here ready to engage in an intellectual debate that maintains respect for the validity of the other side's arguments, even if I happen to not agree with them.

However, in case you missed it, it is my understanding that no such argument exists. The argument in favor of unrestricted immigration policy is based on lies and deception.

E.g. Saying "Stop, my sides hurt from laughing" when someone is explaining their POV to you is simply asking for them to tune you out. Whether or not they're intelligent, you've treated them like an idiot, and therefore shut them out of the conversation, and invite only idiots to continue.

Again, you're not talking about anyone who has put forth an intellectual, reasonable, fact-based argument in support of unrestricted immigration. You're talking about people who have been victimized by lies and deception. I think my initial response to CoccoBill was fact-based and logical. He responded by echoing the talking points of the deceivers by making accusations of racism.

Any suggestion that mine, wuf's, or spoon's position on immigration involves even a modicum of disdain for brown-skinned people is IDIOCY. And I'm glad it's been purged from the conversation

[CoccoBill]

You're still going on about this? Dude, take your meds.

I made the obvious mistake of chitchatting randomly in the randomness thread, and it took all of 2 lines for you to switch it to "all Mexicans who want to come to USA are illegal criminals looking to leech MY MONEYYY".

Maybe no one in this thread is answering your idiotic question about benefits of illegal immigration cos there doesn't seem to be a single person here that supports that view.

[BananaStand]

You mean the thing I suggested in the next sentence? Sounds like a workable plan.

Unless there is something wrong with my reading comprehension, your next sentence suggested to either A) Increase judicial funding to accommodate the high number of defendants, or B) Eliminate the law altogether.

I'm suggesting a third option....just reduce the number of defendants.

Historically, exactly 0 walls have proven successful measures at accomplishing any possible goal of having a wall.

Great Wall of China? Didn't prevent the Mongol Hoards from killing 90% of all Chinese people.
Berlin Wall? The whole world threw a party when it came down.
Any wall without constant personnel? Thwarted by a ladder.

Other than that, it sounds great.

The people who's job it is to secure our southern border say it takes a combination of manpower, technology, and physical barriers. Those three work symbiotically and the border can't be adequately secured without a working combination of all three. These people live it every single day, and you don't. So forgive me if I defer to their opinion.

Furthermore, I will say that I used to agree with you. I imagined that if I were a poor oppressed Mexican looking to feed my family, then I would get in by catapult if I had to. I've since warmed up to the idea of a wall, mainly because it's permanent. Yes, you can enforce the border using drones, and sensors, and surveillance. However, the next President could come in, pull that funding, and ostensibly re-open the border. Can't do that with a wall.

Reagan tried to fix immigration 30 years ago and failed because he didn't permanently secure the border. A wall fixes that.

I know this will come as a shock to you, but the reason it's not clear is because I haven't offered my opinion on the matter.

Then why bring it up?

Reason: It's not a big deal. People are getting all worked up over trivialities. I have no emotional investment in this issue. My only guideline is "Don't be a jerk." and it applies to immigrants and border control workers alike.

Does committing a crime that violates the sovereignty of a nation count as "being a jerk"?

I've never made any of these assertions and asking me to guess why other people think what they do is a recipe for nonsense.
Ask a progressive. I don't think I'd count myself as a progressive on border control.

You asserted that families being separated is a bad thing. I'm simply asking you who's fault is it that the family is separated??

And btw, you DID make an assertion when you said "shit happens". Exactly what "shit" are you talking about?

For the zillionth time, I never said it was!!! Who are you talking to???

For the zillion and first time....I'm talking to ANYONE

The first part is true, but the 2nd simply lacks creativity, and weighs heavily on the absurd assumption that all laws are good and just.

If you're asserting that immigration laws are unjust, then please explain why. If you are asserting that immigration laws ARE just, then one can only assume that implies they are reasonable and logical. Which begs the question "what's your point??"

[BananaStand]

You're still going on about this? Dude, take your meds.

@MMM, you were confused earlier about the definition of ad-hominem attacks. ^This is one.

I made the obvious mistake of chitchatting randomly in the randomness thread, and it took all of 2 lines for you to switch it to "all Mexicans who want to come to USA are illegal criminals looking to leech MY MONEYYY".

I never said anything even close to that. Strawman.

Maybe no one in this thread is answering your idiotic question about benefits of illegal immigration cos there doesn't seem to be a single person here that supports that view.

"how does unrestricted immigration help America?" Can you explain why that question is idiotic, invalid, or unworthy of an answer?

Can you use reason, facts, or logic to make your case?

Or are you just going to continue to be an obedient drone executing your programmed task of crying 'racism'

[spoonitnow]

Walls work: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ration-99-per/

[MadMojoMonkey]

@MMM, you were confused earlier about the definition of ad-hominem attacks. ^This is one.

I wasn't. It is more of a personal attack, but since he's not using it to discredit your ideas, it's not an ad hominem.

[BananaStand]

he's not using it to discredit your ideas,

False

[MadMojoMonkey]

Walls work: www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/13/ron-johnson/border-fence-israel-cut-illegal-immigration-99-per/

Did you read it?

It's not saying that the headline is to be taken as a fact. It also points out some striking differences between that border and the US-Mexico border. (None of which can't be overcome if America decides that where we want to spend our resources.)

Also, not for nothing, time hasn't really passed on this one yet. I doubt the Berlin Wall or the Great Wall of China was looking like a failure only 3 years on. It seems premature to cite this recent development as a counter-argument to the biggest examples in human history. I can't in good faith ignore this example, but it also doesn't seem like a strong counter to my points at this time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

False

Well, rest assured that if that was his attempt to discredit your ideas, he's an idiot for not mentioning any of your ideas which are implicitly false due to your use of unnamed meds.

[BananaStand]

Well, rest assured that if that was his attempt to discredit your ideas, he's an idiot for not mentioning any of your ideas which are implicitly false due to your use of unnamed meds.

What happens between your computer screen and your brain that causes words and meanings to collide in an epic cluster-fuck of misunderstanding??

He was clearly insinuating that my presence in this debate (ie, the expression of my ideas) is the result of a lack of mind-numbing medication

[BananaStand]

I doubt the Berlin Wall or the Great Wall of China was looking like a failure only 3 years on.

Are you really typing this with a straight face??

Or are you just hopelessly uninformed of the massive advances in wall technology over the last 2500 years??

Like, I wonder how many mongols might have been thwarted by thermal imaging cameras.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I can't respond to everything in that wall of text, nanners. I'll try to answer your direct questions, though.

Then why bring it up?
I haven't brought up immigration once. You keep talking about immigration when I'm talking about the level of respect in the political discourse

Does committing a crime that violates the sovereignty of a nation count as "being a jerk"?
Yes.

I'm simply asking you who's fault is it that the family is separated??
IDK. Which family? There isn't going to be a single answer.

Exactly what "shit" are you talking about?
The everyday shit sandwiches that life hands out world-round.

For the zillion and first time....I'm talking to ANYONE
They're either not here, or they're not interested in telling you the reasons just so you can tell them they're idiots, liars, etc.

Which begs the question "what's your point??"
My point is that treating people willing to talk politics with you like they're idiots drives away intelligent opposition to your points, and leaves you actually engaged with idiots.

[BananaStand]

My point is that treating people willing to talk politics with you like they're idiots drives away intelligent opposition to your points, and leaves you actually engaged with idiots.

yes, I heard you. However, maybe you missed my rebuttal.....

THERE IS NO INTELLIGENT OPPOSITION

Even if I concede that my attitude has driven them away from this forum (which I do not concede, but adamantly deny)....the fact still remains that an intelligent, fact based, reasonable answer to my question does not exist ANYWHERE within the entirety of national discourse on this subject.

If I missed it, please provide a link.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What happens between your computer screen and your brain that causes words and meanings to collide in an epic cluster-fuck of misunderstanding??

Thank you, again, for illustrating my point.

[BananaStand]

Thank you, again, for illustrating my point.

If your point was correct, you'd be gone by now

[MadMojoMonkey]

If I missed it, please provide a link.

Educate yourself. You've proven time and again that you are only looking for arguments from anyone who disagrees with you, not understanding.

I'm not into that game.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If your point was correct, you'd be gone by now

Meaning you still think we're talking politics?

lol.

[BananaStand]

Educate yourself. You've proven time and again that you are only looking for arguments from anyone who disagrees with you, not understanding.

I'm not into that game.

Thank you for proving my point. Any request for intelligent debate on this issue is met with personal attacks, because thats ALL the other side has.

There is no intelligent defense for unrestricted immigration.

Furthermore, your "educate yourself" comment is hopelessly misguided. If you believe that I am not spending significant amounts of time each and every day consuming news, analysis, and commentary from a myriad of sources with a variety of political leanings....then you clearly haven't been paying very close attention to anything I've ever posted.