Separating thousands of children from their parents is not a fine point, my unsympathetic friend. — praxis

If you decided to immigrate to Germany and you knew their laws strictly forbade it, and you knew there was increased enforcement of its immigration laws currently in effect, do you not think it criminally negligent for you to bring your kids directly into your criminal enterprise and subject them to law enforcement measures?

1. Many of the immigrants separated are seeking and announcing asylum, which is legal.
2. Many of the immigrants are from countries that were destabilized by the US Government through coups and supplying militia with weapons and training.
3. Even granting that USA has sovereignty over it's borders, this doesn't justify family separation as an acceptable policy. This is sheer victim blaming 'look at what you made me do' thinking.

I've made and flushed out these points to you several times, but you simply ignore them.

Between Hanover justifying separating families and wanting to vote for Trump, despite not liking him, just to see democrats have a second meltdown, I think 'deplorable' is a pretty apt appellation

If you decided to immigrate to Germany and you knew their laws strictly forbade it, and you knew there was increased enforcement of its immigration laws currently in effect, do you not think it criminally negligent for you to bring your kids directly into your criminal enterprise and subject them to law enforcement measures? — Hanover

That rather depends on the alternative, don't you think?

Let’s assume that I’m a complete asshole and in fact welcome the excuse to rid myself of the sniveling rug rats. Is it just about my morality?

It’s funny that the party known for championing children, when they’re on the right side of a vagina, can be so willing to defend the abandonment of that concern after they’ve crossed that barrier. Separating a child from their parents in this manner is undoubtedly traumatic and has caused incalculable mental anguish. But I get it, ideology/morality can be expressed in many counterintuitive ways. The important thing is that the mistake was identified and corrected.

I'm pretty sure when discussing this with ArguingWAristotleTiff last year that Obama separated kids from the people they were travelling with because they couldn't establish whether they were their parents or not. Mostly done to avoid human trafficking. — Benkei

How does this differ from the Trump administration policy? I can see how kids would arrive with adults, but I don't see how it would have been any more difficult to establish actual families then than it is now.

It’s funny that the party known for championing children, when they’re on the right side of a vagina, can be so willing to defend the abandonment of that concern after they’ve crossed that barrier. — praxis

Even funnier is how the party known for killing babies is so worried about whether a child is separated from her mother for a short while.

Funnier still is that I'm pro-choice, but that hardly matters, since we're just spinning this in the way that makes the other look as absurd as possible, which I think was the lament of the OP.

Separating a child from their parents in this manner is undoubtedly traumatic and has caused incalculable mental anguish. — praxis

Yeah, I doubt it. I'm not discounting that the separation isn't a happy time for the child, but life is difficult for all sort of kids, not only those with parents who knowingly and recklessly subject them to foreign authorities.

Sometimes (as in always), when a parent commits a crime and gets incarcerated, his kids don't get to join him in the cell. One of the problems with being a criminal is the wide reaching range of victims who you never even considered, like all those you let down from your bad decisions.

The point of this OP I don't think is to get you to agree with me, but maybe just to realize that different worldviews yield different results, and that perhaps the diversity of opinion championed by the left ought be permitted to apply to the opinions of the right, instead of labeling them evil in the limited good/evil dichotomy.

we're just spinning this in the way that makes the other look as absurd as possible, which I think was the lament of the OP — Hanover

I fully realized that while choosing how to approach your question. I chose the approach that I felt like taking. I have confidence in your rationality, also.

Yeah, I doubt it. I'm not discounting that the separation isn't a happy time for the child, but... — Hanover

Rationalizing.

Let me ask you, was it right to stop this policy or should it be continued?

Let me ask you, was it right to stop this policy or should it be continued? — praxis

Political decisions are pragmatic and it seemed an unsustainable policy based upon democratic sentiment. Maintaining it would only lead to greater polarization with minimal effect on the underlying problem of illegal immigration. So, it should be stopped.

The best argument against the morality of the policy (after subtracting out the pragmatics) is that the consequence of separation was draconian, being unjust not because a negative consequence was undeserving, but because it was cruel and unusual. That is to say, I don't think it reasonable to assume you can illegally cross a border without repercussion and I think you are particularly reckless if you bring your children along and place them in peril, but I'm willing to consider other responses to the problem other than separating the children from the parents that are less harsh. I do believe that justice without mercy is not justice at all, but is simply revenge.

My openness to other responses to the moral violation of the parents and my reference to the lofty proposition of justice is based upon my infinite rationality and inherent gentle disposition.

My openness to other responses to the moral violation of the parents and my reference to the lofty proposition of justice is based upon my infinite rationality and inherent gentle disposition. — Hanover

Lovely.

being unjust not because a negative consequence was undeserving — Hanover

The aspect that I'm trying to introduce you to is that the children are innocent. The children are undeserving, are they not?

it seemed an unsustainable policy based upon democratic sentiment — Hanover

Conservative sentiments don't extend to innocent children?

You can't win when I have the moral high ground. Just admit it was a mistake and let's leave it at that.

That is to say, I don't think it reasonable to assume you can illegally cross a border without repercussion and I think you are particularly reckless if you bring your children along and place them in peril, — Hanover

What if the peril of staying where you are--i.e., Guatemala, Honduras--is far worse than the peril of trying to enter the usa illegally? What if the threats at home put your childrens' lives in worse peril?

Let me ask you, was it right to stop this policy or should it be continued?

I’m trying not to butt in, but ethically it’s double edged sword. Some believe throwing children in jail with their parents or potential human traffickers is obscene, while others believe it is awful to separate them. Both are valid.

But deterrence is necessary to quell illegal immigration. One of the many risks of committing crimes is that you are separated from your family.

According to ICE, their new DNA testing program has given us frightening results:

Out of the 102 family DNA tests administered last week, 85 were found to have a familial connection, ICE said. Seventeen came out negative, and 16 of those were referred for prosecution.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/22/politics/ice-deploys-dna-testing-at-border/index.html

Personally I think providing care for the children while their “families” are processed and prosecuted is far more humane than tossing those children in jail with potential human traffickers.

Of course, there are legal and secure ways to enter the country.

I do believe that justice without mercy is not justice at all, but is simply revenge. — Hanover

The question is why you are looking at this from the perspective of justice first, and not, say, from the perspective of a problem to be solved. Sure entering the country illegally is a crime, but just calling it a crime solves nothing. It's an administrative crime, too, so there is no victim looking for justice.

So why bring up it's criminality, stopping at a label, rather than looking at pragmatic solutions?

But deterrence is necessary to quell illegal immigration. — NOS4A2

Is that so? How do you know?

The aspect that I'm trying to introduce you to is that the children are innocent. The children are undeserving, are they not? — praxis

Yes, so let's collect up the world's children and nuture and care for them all, and let's collect up all the kitties and puppies too that have lesser homes than my spoiled floppy eared Fred and give them better homes.

I'm trying to point out that if irresponsible parents place their children in jeopardy, let's place the blame on the parents and not allow them to use their children to mitigate the parents' problems.

You can't win when I have the moral high ground. Just admit it was a mistake and let's leave it at that. — praxis

This is the very problem pointed out by the OP. It's this lecturing, self certainty that makes you think you can end the conversation by just announcing yourself right.

What to do with terrorists who hide in grammar schools? What sort of force can you use? It's the same sort of question. That the nuance evades you because you want to keep assuring yourself and telling me that you love children more than me doesn't sway me in your direction.

Is that so? How do you know?

For the same reason I don’t speed around police. If an action is likely to lead to negative consequences we are less likely to do it. If the penalty for illegal entry is jail and deportation, one is less likely to do it.

I’m trying not to butt in, but ethically it’s double edged sword. Some believe throwing children in jail with their parents or potential human traffickers is obscene, while others believe it is awful to separate them. Both are valid. — NOS4A2

If they're both valid then you can explain how the former is not preferable.

According to ICE, their new DNA testing program has given us frightening results: — NOS4A2

That 15% fail a test with dubious credibility is concerning but not "frightening."

If they're both valid then you can explain how the former is not preferable.

For the same reason we do not throw children in jail with their parents. It is unjust.

That 15% fail a test with dubious credibility is concerning but not "frightening."

15% of “families” engage in child trafficking is only concerning? Do your sentiments not extend to innocent children?

You can't win when I have the moral high ground. Just admit it was a mistake and let's leave it at that.
— praxis

This is the very problem pointed out by the OP. It's this lecturing, self certainty that makes you think you can end the conversation by just announcing yourself right. — Hanover

These are serious issues and I shouldn't fool around as I have.

These are serious issues and I shouldn't fool around as I have. — praxis

I get the sarcasm, but I'm not chastising you. I'm just saying I know you and I don't agree and doubtfully ever will, so if that's all you're letting me know, we probably could have figured that out before we started talking. I think the point of the OP was just to point out the problem associated with vilifying the other side of we are to ever neutralize the discord. If you don't see harmony as a goal, then we can keep up doing what we're doing.

If they're both valid then you can explain how the former is not preferable.

For the same reason we do not throw children in jail with their parents. It is unjust. — NOS4A2

In the situation we're discussing the choice is between the two. As far as I know, there's no option to not hold the child.

15% of “families” engage in child trafficking is only concerning? Do your sentiments not extend to innocent children? — NOS4A2

I am honestly not frightened by the information. I'm a bad Libtard. :sad:

I'm trying to point out that if irresponsible parents place their children in jeopardy, let's place the blame on the parents and not allow them to use their children to mitigate the parents' problems. — Hanover

Why do you think the parents were irresponsible as opposed to desperately trying to keep their children alive by removing them from a scene of social disintegration?

We know that a fair amount of recent illegal immigration was and is exactly that. Ok, so they screwed up and didn't wait in line for two years (or however long) waiting to be seen by a judge. Let's all remember that the next time we're fleeing organized crime through the middle of nowhere.

I liked the comment about mercy though. That was awesome.

1991. Dutch. — Benkei

Much respect. Apologies.

I'm just saying I know you and I don't agree and doubtfully ever will, so if that's all you're letting me know, we probably could have figured that out before we started talking. — Hanover

You're the one who started this. If your intention for doing so had to do with the "problem pointed out by the OP," I fail to see it. Despite my responses, which were intentionally confrontational, you could've tried to find common ground, appealed to liberal values, or whatever. You did not.

Despite my responses, which were intentionally confrontational, you could've tried to find common ground, appealed to liberal values, or whatever. You did not. — praxis

The object isn't to appease, but to not be confrontational in the first place.

That's what I was pointing out. I have though, despite your efforts at confrontation, not cared. That's mostly because I'm too cool for school.

Ha. My point is, both sides have legitimate concerns that are not necessarily about hatred or malice. It’s best if we at least hear them out, and then “steel-man” their arguments before straw manning them.

The object isn't to appease, but to not be confrontational in the first place. — Hanover

Alright, then let me put it a different way, why weren’t you non-confrontational? And who said anything about appeasement?

I’m not saying it’s easy to ‘reach across the aisle’, far from it. I will say that actually trying to do it is far more productive than crying foul when others don’t try.

And to add ... or simply debate the argument as best you can from the position you’re against. Publicly. It helps to understand the kind of shot being thrown at your ‘opponents’ if you play devil’s advocate. There is always a positive to every side if we look hard enough - that doesn’t mean we have to agree overall though.

Anyway, was fun to pop by. See ya’ll ;)

What some people have a lot of trouble doing is distinguishing between Unite the Right types and other Trump voters. Everything gets smushed together. These type of people have a tendency to talk to anyone who supports Trump and treat them like someone who would've been super-down to fuck up Charlottesville. Initially, people are like, wait, wait - no, my stance is....

And then you go 'Listen you RACIST IDIOT, if you had HALF A BRAIN, you'd realize that I'M RIGHT and you are BAD. I've ADMIRABLY studied this shit and am SMART while you were doing STUPID BAD things so you should listen to me right now and stop being BAD and DUMB.

Now let's say there is tons of political nuance that's being missed, institutional racism, etc. (In fact, I would agree that this is the case.) By collapsing an entire spectrum of problematic views w/r/t race, into Racist (bad) versus woke (good) and placing everyone you disagree with all the way on the end, you guarantee that they will never listen to you. In fact, they'll, slowly, begin to doubt other, more nuanced, more apt, accusations of racism. The significance of 'racist' will begin to be devalued. Accusations of racism they would have agreed with you on before, now seem to become suspect. Eventually they'll stop listening to you altogether. They won't become literal nazis - as in your cartoon - just as Hanover didn't say he was going to become a literal nazi. They'll see enough cartoons like yours to realize there is no chance in any conversation but for themselves to be caricatured and they'll just stop listening to you.

And after a while, there'll be nothing left to do but to angrily rant to a few people who agree with you at a bar, totally unheard except by those who already agree, left alone with a simmering cioran rage, left outletless.(I've been there, and often dip back. it's an unpleasant place to be)

The point of the cartoon is to lampoon the argument that calling a person, or group of people Nazis, or Racists, or Fascists will eventually make them embrace those very positions. Or in Hanover's terms, calling them Nazis will "strengthen their resolve" and lead them to embrace their political leaders who...call immigrants vermin and throw them into concentration camps in inhumane conditions, which is totally not Nazi-like.

Not sure what conversation you'd like me to have with Hanover and others, when the points I'm making are constantly ignored.

I do understand the cartoon. It's an interesting cartoon in that, in responding to a line of argument, it makes the same move the argument was trying to illustrate on another level. What I take Hanover to be saying is what I was trying to outline in my post - reducing a wide spectrum of people to the worst possible outlier on the far end of the spectrum. When you accuse people of being The Worst Possible Thing, they react, reflexively, by seeing you as an enemy. There is no better means of entrenching people in their already-held positions. That's the argument

The cartoon lampoons this argument by representing the person making it as a foaming, irrational figure. The person who accuses them of racism, of course, isn't even accusing anyone. She's just looking at her phone, and having a calm thought to herself, a 'huh'. The foaming, irrational figure immediately decides to shave his head and become a nazi. Which....isn't what Hanover was planning to do at all, unless I misread him. The cartoon is making the exact same bad political/rhetorical move he was decrying. While taking, as its subject matter, the thing that it is.