Are you okay? I don't understand why you went full Karen on this debate.
As far as logic goes... you have given a perfect example of what NOT to do in a debate.
Let's learn the Logic commandments:
1) Thau shall not use personal attacks
2) Thau shall not deviate from the topic at hand
3) Thau shall not use the threat of force
4) Thau shall not introduce unrelated topics
5) Thau shall not beg the question
I'm only giving half because I don't feel kind today.
Threatening me a gay man with gay sex, definitely the highlight of my day. Alternative ending, you and I, right now, doggy style. We'll post it on xvideos the superior porn site.
I was being facetious, I understand that there's more nuance to this topic.
Have you seed the movie Bubble Boy? This boy lives his entire life in a bubble believing that if he came out of it, he would die. He denied himself so many experiences because of that fear. It is only when he leaves the bubble that he truly starts living. He had a false believe about the world that impeded him from doing things he wanted to do. Well.. that's religion. If a believe in God is false, that means your morals, actions, politics, even they way you treat others is based on a false believe.
Establishing validity for not only God but the version of God someone ascribes to seems very important. This is where it all falls apart because at the point you start asking for evidence, you are told: "You find God through faith, believe without knowing". That's at the core of many religions. It's not only a way to believe in God, but to justify any believe in anything.
You takes the stories of the bible, koran, and torah. They are all part of a mythology that share a lot of features with pagan and dead religions, there's ancient writings that show that ancient Jews were polytheists. Evidence that the torah was written by 4 different authors that modified each other's text. That the new testament was modified time and time again after it was originally written.
So at this point to can take and claim that your version of believing is the right one, or just realize that these are believe systems that were created by people that had ancient ideas about how the world worked. Which by today standards... were very wrong.
Let's take a few steps back... What is a God? How do you know something is a God? How do you know it exists? Why only one and not many? When you ask these questions you NEVER get the same answers. Everyone has their own vague ideas about God, and that's reflected in the amount of sects Christians, Muslims, and Jews have. God seems like a reflection of themselves than something real.
At the core of the belief is Faith: believing without certainty. Many times I've argued about this... I get essentially the same contrived answer: "I know for certain that God exists because I don't know". Faith is paradoxical at best, it demands certainty of a belief without the assurance of verifying if it's true. Imagine if that's how we actually ran the world, if judges simply believed plaintiffs because they demanded faith.
I've never seen a good argument for god. They're all contrived machinations of logic and reason. Many times arguments that come from an emotional attachment to the belief itself. I blame the indoctrination that we all had as children. It stays there like a tick for the brain, sucking away the ability to see beyond the primitive morality that religion teaches.
Evidence is meaningless in the eyes of those who have closed their mind and live in a world of perfect certainty. It doesn't matter how many arguments you knock down, it only makes the religions more reassured of themselves. Believes that then they use to tell others how to live, even by force.
Give me actual evidence and I'll believe... aside from that there's nothing else to say.
Population graphs are not linear systems, they're chaotic. What that means is that populations don't simply grow in one direction, there are a multitude of factors that grow in different directions that gives you a final result. When Russia fought in WW2 they had a lot of casualties, those deaths still appear in populations graphs today as depressions in numbers every few years.
The massive increase in human population is due to the fact we can now mass produce resources, less people die at birth, and people live longer due to modern medicine. Population culling of any kind wouldn't result in more resources for everyone, it would actually result in Economic downturns because there's less people producing (or working and consuming).
A lot of the problems mentioned in the post are efficiency problems. Better recycling, green energy, sustainable farming, cleaning efforts, regulation of pollutants, and alternative materials for electronics. This are all things in the realm of possibility that would allow us not to destroy the planet as OP put it. Things that wouldn't go away if there are less people, we would just destroy the planet slower.
How do you know he created everything? How do you know that your idea of creation is right, but the ancient Greeks or Egyptians is wrong?
No overpopulation is not the problem. Efficient use and distribution of resources are bigger ones.
Why waste a life living in a fantasy when reality is much more refreshing? There's no afterlife, no Jesus, no god. Don't waste your life believing what is essentially mythology.
Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Most people that are taken to a hospital because of a suicide attempt usually don't repeat the attempt when the get back home.
Today's youth are not handling the current state of the world very well, that's why getting therapy is such an important aspect to reducing attempts, and also teaching people how to handle circumstances that out of their control and focus on the aspects that are.
The other mayor factor is that depression is on the rise and that's the thing that's missing from this discussion. Depression is very debilitating condition, it's not something someone can willpower out of, and that a lot of times leads to suicide attempts. Again, this is something that a therapist/psychiatrist is trained to handle. What I feel the big issue is, is that access to mental health services in the US are prohibitively expensive which is exacerbating the problem, but that a discussion for another time.
What are we suppose to debate here? You are basic asking what flavor of ice cream is best and expecting so sort of discussion... in the end it's all opinion there's nothing to discuss.
No, we should be using Roman numerals to uphold the values of Western society. It's easier too. How much is DCLXVI * V, It's MMMCCCXXX Obviously.
1) Covid-19 is a new virus that no one has immunity to, so it can spread very quickly.
2) In terms of lethality is one of the deadliest flu that is out in the wild.
3) It's more contagious than other flus.
4) It kills older people at a much higher rate than younger ones, putting older folks as risk population and younger ones as vectors for spreading the disease.
5) People that survive Covid-19 are left with permanent lung damage, and there's evidence it causes blood cloths.
6) Since the Covid-19 is spreading so quickly there a chance it can mutate and allow itself to re-infect people.
7) At this point, the best strategy to prevent tons of people from dying is to put restrictions that slow the spread of the virus, mostly to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed by cases.
To me it sounds like those people are buying into a unfounded conspiracy than looking at the facts. Sweden decided to allow people to get infected (didn't put restrictions) and now are suffering because of it, a lot of people have died... and the sad truth is that a lot of those deaths are preventable.
Neither, humans evolved an immune system in order to survive. For a very long time people constantly died of horrible diseases. It wasn't until the development of vaccines that herd immunity became a thing.
Just look to the Right and you'll have all the proof you need.
FIFY
You literally have provided zero material, and I'm the one that should be embarrassed. At least if you're going to argue for you position, don't rely so heavily right-wing talking points that are easy to debunk. Better luck next time.
It's not that they can't come up with an ID, it's what counts as a valid ID to vote. These laws aren't targeting fraudulent voters. A 2014 GAO study showed that these laws are reducing turnout by 3% targeting poor and minority voters. As turns out they struggle to acquire the types of IDs every other American has no problem getting, and that's by design because the people making the law don't want them to vote.
Voter ID laws limit legitimate voters. You should only have to prove your voting status when you register to vote, which already bars illegal immigrants (and others) from voting because they don't have the proper documentation or status.
And yes, it absolutely affects elections and in a way you apparently don't like.
saying something is colder than something else is objectively true or false
It's not an objective true or false, that's a relative claim. You are confusing logical statements with objective statements. Saying for example, the sun is colder than neutron star. While true, we would be dealing with temperatures so high it's absurd. But astronomers know this because they have a very precise way to measure this concept. Which again, it's not true of morality, even when it comes to making relative statements.
temperature was objective long before we could measure it, despite the fact that we once only knew it subjectively.
Just because temperature is an objective fact doesn't mean morality exists in the same form. Simply because temperature used to be subjective doesn't imply morality will stop being subjective in the future.
I haven’t presented my version of morality.
If I understand correctly, you are arguing that morality stems from evolution. If so, that implies a version of morality that differs from others.
I cannot illustrate that absolute health exists. Nonetheless we can show that some things are healthier than others
In science, bad health means a disruption in expected functioning, which is something you can measure. Two people living with AIDS can be tested to see which one is in worse health by measuring their T-cell count. Something you can't do with morality, or any moral dilemma.
One must only know that its existence is independent of experience
If you want to KNOW it's objective you need to model it and test it. Without that it doesn't matter if it's independent of experience. How would you even know that the reason something is hot is because it contains the element fire, and cold because it contains the element water. You have to model and test that model in verify it's validity.
It is the fact that it is an evolved trait
That doesn't make morality objective. Creativity is an evolved trait but that doesn't make it objective. For it to be objective it must exist outside the human experience. The second issue is that if evolution is our guide for morality you end up the issue that nature is full of things we find objectionable, like cannibalism, incest, rape, violence, etc. So even with that interpretation of morality it is still incredibly inconsistent.
Some languages are better than others for communication. Some morality is better than others for human well-being.
Languages are products of the culture they form in, they fit the needs of the people speaking it. That's also true of morality. There's no way to determine which is the "best" language as much as determining the "best" morality.
Morality is always a system of propriety of conduct. It cannot, by definition be otherwise. Though the specifics of that system will vary.
The specifics vary so much there's no way to determine what humans agree on. Like I said in my original post, incest being objectionable is about the few we all agree on.
As I said science has discovered the objective nature of morality, scientists simply do not discuss it in these terms
What scientists have studied doesn't tell you why - let's say - abortion is right or wrong. They are studying group dynamics and behavior, and what morality means inside a group.
Science has shown that morality plays a necessary role for humans and it exists because of evolution. These two facts are sufficient to know that morality is objective.
That doesn't make morality objective. Art has been very important to human tribal dynamics, that doesn't make art objective.
The “very specific” form you are referring to is merely the descriptive definition of morality. Morality, in any form, is never not a code of conduct.
I think you misunderstand what I'm arguing. Morality is a code of conduct, I'm not going to argue against that (maybe I caused some confusing earlier). What that code of conduct is - is something that is not objective, especially where that code of conduct comes from.
You have an idea of where that code of conduct comes from, and you are using that to say that is is possible to find the "best and most morally valid law", what I'm arguing is that there's not.
I have established the objective nature of morality. Your response so far seem to be that you still believe it is subjective.
You have not established objective morality, far from it. You simply have used your own interpretation and using that to argue that your view of morality is objective when it's not. Like I've said before, in order to establish objective morality you would need to use a specific language to even approach the topic, relative statements don't suffice.
I want to know exactly what specifically you believe is subjective about what I have presented.
That you can establish a "best, most functional, or most morally valid law". The essence of such statement put you in the realm of pure subjectivity. There's no means to establish such law, even with relative statements. Even if we both agree that evolution is the source of all morality.
Immigrant foreigners have little to no political power and aren't trying to affect elections to further their own political agenda. While Russia affecting elections sets a precedent of what is possible now to undermine democracy by a non-democratic government.
No I didn't, you just failed to see the connection. It's due to how white folks see themselves, it's their own thoughts and feelings about belonging to the white race. In some instances it's shame, in other it's pride.
Saying the last person caught in white robes was a democrat fails to really capture where in the political spectrum the KKK is at. Hint, it's on the right voting for conservatives. When David Duke runs for political office as a Democrat, maybe then you'll have a case.
I imagine for the same reason conservatives put on white robes and call themselves wizards.
Right, that's my point. How can anyone determine such law without it being just someone's opinion.
Oh, hi outlaw. How's your day going?
Are you trying to sound intelligent ??????
No, even if I tried, I will never sound as intelligent as you.
Dummy is Rape and Murder questionable in your mind ????????????
The question being asked is about finding the "most morally valid law", not why we find certain things objectionable. So let me ask you this. What makes murder wrong?
That depends on whether you believe human rights should be awarded to certain people or be universal.
Inheritance of mental disorders is not a straight forward subject. For example, during the holocaust 75%-100% of people with schizophrenia were either killed or sterilized. Studies postwar showed that the prevalence of schizophrenia was actually higher than expected. To say the least, it didn't work - which is counter-intuitive since schizophrenia is one of the most hereditary mental illness.
The same would apply for autism. What would preventing them from having children accomplish?
The existence of an objective standard, one independent of our perception, does not imply that we can sufficiently perceive all the necessary variables required to test at the level you propose
When you want to find the best and most moral law, you require a precise and objective way of measuring morality. For example, when we say something is cold, that's vague and subjective. When you say it's -20 degrees Celsius, there's is no confusion on what that means. Morality would need something similar in order for it to become objective. It doesn't suffice to say something is good or bad, moral or immoral.
While we cannot know with certainty which individual actions are best suited for our well-being, either individually or on the whole, we can know that some actions are detrimental.
Your statement would only be true if we assume your version of morality was the only that existed. The issue is that you would have to prove that an absolute morality exists, and then also prove that how you model morality is the standard we should use for all morality.
We know that there is a whole objective world out there that we cannot perceive and thus, cannot test.
In order to know if something is an objective truth it must be modeled and tested. Also, simply because we don't fully understand the nature of morality doesn't mean it exists outside the realm of human subjectivity. Morality could be a mechanism that arises from social behavior instead of survival. It could also mean that it exists in many forms, not in one objective form.
The precise differences that we once could not detect still existed prior to our detection. Morality is no different.
You don't know that morality would fall into this category. Trying to argue that morality exists outside subjectivity, is similar to arguing that objective beauty exists. What is the best and most beautiful thing in the universe?
Science has. It’s simply that people do not discuss it in these terms, though we are beginning to.
Science is not finding objective morality. They are modeling moral behavior and studying how morality arises. Those are very different things.
is so incredibly complex that even though we’ve done it since forever, you believe it cannot properly be done.
It's not that it cannot be properly done. It's that you are assuming morality can only exist in a very specific form. Especially one that can establish a best and most moral law.
It can, though not precisely. A true statement need not be precise, or even consistent in all contexts, to be true.
Yes, but doesn't mean an objective morality exist, especially one that exists outside subjectivity. A morality that can be used to establish the moral value of every single action and behavior.
An objective standard, not arbitrarily determined, exists for morality.
Making such claim implies that every action can be tested to determine it's true moral value, no moral dilemma would ever be ambiguous. Personally, I think the entire field of philosophy wouldn't exists if that were the case.
If there were no tests for eyesight, would some eyesight not be better than others? Testability is not essential to objectivity.
Testability is the essence of objectivity, that's how you determine if something is objective or not. If there was no objective way to test eyesight, bad eyesight would just be a subjective opinion. Although we now have a way to precisely define what bad eyesight is, that doesn't mean that's going to be true of morality.
we can estimate moral quality as we once estimated eyesight
Eyesight at its core is a physical process that can be precisely measured. Morality on the other hand is an abstract concept that has a murky definition. A definition that is imprecise and changes. Simply because science hasn't found objective morality, that doesn't mean it exists.
morality is a guide to behavior, and an evolved trait, behavior that fails to serve the function for which morality evolved, essentially surviveability, is morally incorrect.
That's how you've come to define morality. Yours differs greatly on how others define it. Keeping with you definition. Have you ever heard of the four Fs in evolutionary biology? Fight, Flee, Food, and Reproduce. That's what your definition of morality would boil down to.
according to some chosen standard.
Yes, but that standard is essentially arbitrary, not objective.
So is eyesight, but we can demonstrate that some see better than others
There's an objective way to test your ability to see, every test measures a very specific aspect of vision (like visual acuity measuring refraction errors in the eyeball). There's no such test for morality or laws.
Would you mind clarifying that statement?
Absolute morality is this idea that morality exists in the realm of - let's say - Newton's laws of motion. They are precise and unchanging and deviating from those moral laws means you are immoral. So my point is that until you find a concrete way to establish such morality, it is impossible to determine the "most morally valid law."
There are also crimes against people, such as assault and murder, and crimes against property, such as theft.
Right, but those aren't as universal as you think they are. The reasons for who should be killed for what (if at all), changes from culture to culture. What constitutes assault is never consistent among cultures, even if the concept exists at all. Same goes for property and theft.
In order to establish that you would need a way to quantify the value of a law. Secondly, morality is very subjective and you would also have to find a way to make morality absolute. You could potentially establish this by seeing which laws have endured the test of time and culture, and as it turns out - incest being objectionable - is among the few that have.
The time-frame is too sort to make any significant progress in space colonization.
Developing new technologies is part of the challenge, but the true challenge is cost. Green technology is expensive and underdeveloped compared to their fossil producing counterparts.
It's probably because libs are being exposed to the chemtrails that are turning frogs gay. That's why I always get a big strong alpha-male conservative to open them for me.
The problem with making it uneconomical to pollute is that the world's economy is heavily reliant on carbon emissions. There has been several attempts at an economic approach to cut emissions like the carbon tax credit system which has only produced mixed results in terms of its effectiveness. This is a big problem because according to the UN's IPCC report we need to cut back 50% of current emissions by 2030 in order to prevent irreversible damage to the climate. This is not a simple problem.
The U.S. has around 1/5 the population of China and competes for the number 1 spot in term of producing pollution, I think it's fair to say the U.S. shares the responsibility with China.
Can you explain what you mean by that? I mean economics is an integral part of any system. So how can it by itself end the climate crisis?
But isn't enough to flush your system, which is the actual point to 8 glasses.
Flush you system from what? As long as you are hydrated your liver will do that automatically. Adding extra water doesn't make that system more efficient, it just means the kidneys will now work harder to filter out the extra water.
Which both come from the 5 senses.
The ability to balance comes from a structure in the inner ear called the vestibular system which is separate from your ability to hear. It is an independent sixth sense.
Spacial awareness is a sense that's composed from other senses, but it is still a sense, and one that you can lose like eyesight.
Touch can be broken down to pain, pressure, and temperature because they are controlled by different type of receptors. Technically they are different senses with different functions.
1) "You should drink 8 glasses of water a day." Drinking only when you are thirsty is enough to keep you hydrated.
2) "Humans have 5 senses." We have a lot more, like your ability to balance and spacial awareness.
4) "The forbidden fruit in the story of Adam and Eve was an Apple." In actuality the religious texts never mention it, most religious scholars agree that the story most likely implied it was a fig.
Can you tell me when the government entered Americans bedrooms and when government exited Americans bedrooms ? Inquiring minds want to know !!!!!!!!!!
That's one hell of a kinky fetish you got there. Just ask them yourself, the government is always listening just like God, only real.
Are you here to correct it ??
I don't think I have the power to correct something the government did in 2001, I wasn't even allowed to vote back then. The best I can hope for is that a political movement starts to push a limitation of governmental spying powers.
What shall you do now as your government spies on you ?
There's a lot you can do to thwart government collections attempts: use a no-logs VPN, use duckduckgo.com or startpage.com instead of google or bing, switch to linux OS, use custom firmware on your cellphone hopefully with a physical kill-switch, flash your routers with openwrt, encryption is your best friend, and delete facebook.
Is the NSA your friend ????????? If so why do they need a facility to track your every move ????????
The bests of friends, they tell me all the secrets, even yours.
I think they need a facility because if they were outside their computers would break every time it rains, plus it wouldn't be very secret.
Referencing Number 2 do you believe in the Federal Government
They are indeed real last time I checked.
Did your Number 1 not happen under the NIGGER OBAMA
NSA spy programs were created under BUSH before LL COOL J OBAMA was elected in 2008. Much of the NSA surveillance power came from the Patriot Act in 2001, again under BUSH. The NSA leak happened when OBAMA was president.
If you want, I can make you a paper collage with all the dates, then you can come over my house and talk about your feelings, I sense a lot of anger coming from you. I've been told I'm a good listener, plus I like have read a ton of wikipedia articles about psychology so that might come in handy.
I whole-heartedly agree with you on this.
I'm glad we have found some common ground.
Just because I am FREE to own a Ferrari, does not imply I am, or should be ABLE to buy a Ferrari.
A Ferrari is not a basic necessity, it's a luxury. Replace Ferrari with food, shelter, or healthcare and you can see what my issue with your analogy is.
[..] implies societal responsibility to make them ABLE to move up the socioeconomic ladder in the event that they cannot do it on their own.
Before welfare systems were created, the world lived in extreme poverty, it was no-one's responsibility which lead to people being born poor and dying poor. Welfare has continuously shown it's effectiveness at allowing social mobility, and an escape from poverty.
you think societal responsibilities automatically should be fulfilled by government action
That's because established governments have shown their competence in running such systems. They have the resources, data, and labor to be able to fulfill the need of their citizens better than private enterprise.
My view is that protection of the right to earn money to buy food and medical care is a government responsibility. The ensuring of the ability to earn money to buy food and medical care is a private responsibility.
The problem is that poor people don't have the resources that allows them to earn higher incomes (social mobility). The majority of poor people already work, they are so strapped for income and time that they are limited in their ability to acquire better work skills through education. Welfare programs relieve this stress, not only for an individual, but also for their children. Welfare programs also put a safety net for people that suddenly have mass financial loss so they don't end up in extreme poverty, due to say... getting cancer.
The blue in the graph is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which measures the "cycles" of climate variability. The data was compiled by University of Washington.
The red in the graph maps the global average temperature trend compiled by NASA's GISS satellite.
Although the temperatures follow the trends in PDO, the average temperature is moving up. That implies warming despite the variations and oscillations in climate.
When Bush started a war with Iraq which ended with millions of civilian casualties... can one argue that it was his Christian faith that informed his decisions? Which he said it did.
The worse crimes in humanity are committed by different people with different believes for different reasons. Once you make the claim that a specific belief should be suspect, and people who hold that believe must be held accountable; you end up with the problem that you've put tons of separate ideologies into the same group. Christianity has had a very violent history: torture, genocide, force conversions, subjugation of people, etc. However, they've also had a lot of reformations and are divided into many different groups with contradictory believes.
When it comes to the worse atrocities in history, I'm willing to argue that every one of them was more influenced by political ideology than just religious believes. To say that Stalin was a was criminal because he was an Atheist is as absurd as saying Bush was a warmongerer because he was a Christian.
No, that weather and climate are two distinct concepts. It's called climate change not weather change.
I made a clarification in a subsequent post since I didn't explain myself too well.
As Chicago has hell freeze over, Australia is currently experiencing hell.
Just to clarify, she really did say that along with also saying that global warming was like this generations WWII. I give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was just using hyperbole on both instances. I would like to argue that she is mostly right, as climate change is devastating to all life on earth.
The argument is not that the world is ending.... It's that in 12 years 50% of CO2 emissions must be cut in order to prevent the worst effects of climate change (like more intense hurricanes, colder winters, mass desertification, etc). Once that window is closed the effects of climate change are irreversible and irreparable. Humans WILL still survive if the goal is not met, but it will cause massive starvation and mass migration as an altered environment and raising sea levels will make food crops less viable on earth.
As a result of Patriot Act which passed with majority republican support during the Bush administration, the NSA was granted unlimited surveillance power. This led to the creation of the NSA spy programs. So technically... it's the "new Bush world."
1) The Government running a mass surveillance network to collect data on all US citizens turned out to be true when Snowden released the NSA documents.
2) Intelligence agencies running mind control experiments turned out to be true with MK ultra.
3) That the Richard Nixon administration cabinet was pay-to-play turn out to be true with Watergate.
4) Republicans supporting terrorists turned out to be true with Iran-contra scandal.
Yes, oil is non-renewable resource as it takes millions of years to produce from organic matter. We are consuming oil faster tan it can technically be made. Many reports put oil reverses depletion at 50 years to 300 years. Most pessimistic reports assume no new technology for extraction, as most optimistic assumes we'll be able to extract all the oil. The estimates also fail to calculate the decrease in oil use due to climate change concerns and renewable energy alternatives.
If we had no social welfare system, no free health care for non-citizen indigents, etc., no citizenship by-birth to an illegal alien, then illegal immigration would not be a flood, but a trickle.
The reasons many undocumented people stay in a country is none of those things but mainly for work opportunities. Many times to send money back to their families back in their country of origin.
The whole question of the welfare state (and socialism, for that matter) is already a human rights issue
Welfare, human rights, and socialism are distinct topics with no clear connection. There's also such thing as conservative welfare programs, especially in red states. Many that have implemented merit based welfare.
. That argument is always that it is somehow just to take without permission from some people, and give without demonstration of merit, but only need, (or even mere desire) to others.
Paying taxes is a social contract, it is how we fund a functioning government (military, retirement accounts, etc). Without them the government would have to look elsewhere for funding, like China where it owns the country's enterprises. I think the bigger questions should be: Are taxes fair for all members of society? Are taxes being used effectively? Do welfare programs work?
Merit based approach to welfare have been tried. In my state of Indiana, it had very negative effect as poverty rates actually increases in several cities. Merit makes a critical assumption: "poor people are lazy". While the reality is actually different, poor people are... poor. They don't have the resources needed to move up the socioeconomic scale, and welfare system provides this push.
That argument is always that it is somehow just to take without permission from some people, and give without demonstration of merit, but only need
That's because need-based welfare has been shown to work in many countries like Costa Rica, Denmark, Germany, and even the US. As it turns out merit based approaches can actually have a negative effect on poverty rates. And zero welfare would send us back hundreds of years where there was no escape from poverty, you were born poor and died poor.
In the case of welfare, etc.. it oppresses the wealthy minority, by forcing them to pay more.
Oppression means someone is committing an injustice against them, subjugating them to cruelty. No one is doing to the wealthy. Having higher taxation on people that earn millions of dollars can insensitive them to reinvest back into the economy, instead of the current system that incentivizes them to sit on their money.
In the case of immigration, it oppresses the entirety of our nation's citizenry, forcing us to give up control over our home and who may enter it, and handing that control over to the aliens who come over the border without respecting our laws
You keep using that word oppression... no one is being oppressed in this instance. You are not being treated in a cruel way by illegal immigrants. Many undocumented people are simply trying to escape circumstances back in their country of origin or looking for work opportunities in the US.
The libs think human rights only apply to the disadvantaged, the have-nots.
The liberal argument is that the disadvantaged should get government protection and assistance. Not that the disadvantaged are the only ones entitled to more freedom of speech, you are making another strawman argument here.
[...] when you trample or diminish the rights of some to grant some of their advantages to others, you have lowered the baseline of what EVERYONE's rights are.
Human rights aren't a zero-sum game, it is possible to protect they rights of each individual while giving special protections to some. I mean, we live in a society that has deemed it important to give human rights protections to corporations and yet you are still protected under the Bill of Rights.
Lax treatment of illegal aliens, like the welfare system violate both these tenets.
You have your own personal philosophy, and I think it's more ideological than it is practical. Because in the same breath I could say:
"Liberty and Justice is only possible when all members of society are given equal opportunity to succeed. Strong protections for the underprivileged classes and a need-based social welfare program guarantee the freedom of individuals to move up the socioeconomic ladder. This allows people to be free to do what they want despite the circumstances of their birth. Justice means that everyone has equal opportunity in society and is equally accountable for their actions."
