Immigration in the US

[Aurielius]

So your point is? I still don't follow, well I do but please state your opinion why the comparison is something you disagree with, if you wish to contend it.

Nope thats not how this works, you made the comparison you justify it. Just holding you to the standard that you are so fond of applying to others.

No. I don't think it is justifiable. On the contrary you might need to justify it.

 

Aurielius said:

Occupation by right of conquest is as old as civilization, we took the continent by fair means and foul and it's ours now.

 

edit: I was going to hold this one back, but just so you can come back with a better justification of might is right than a logical fallacy, argument from antiquity

Nice try.... but your comparison was with the American expansion being equivalent to Hitler's occupation of Europe in terms of justification. When you finish with your explanation then will be glad to elucidate my view.

 

Edit: To the peanut gallery, Ghogiel writes perfectly lucid and clear English so I don't need a translator

Edited August 25, 2011 by Aurielius

[Ghogiel]

So your point is? I still don't follow, well I do but please state your opinion why the comparison is something you disagree with, if you wish to contend it.

Nope thats not how this works, you made the comparison you justify it. Just holding you to the standard that you are so fond of applying to others.

No. I don't think it is justifiable. On the contrary you might need to justify it.

 

Aurielius said:

Occupation by right of conquest is as old as civilization, we took the continent by fair means and foul and it's ours now.

 

edit: I was going to hold this one back, but just so you can come back with a better justification of might is right than a logical fallacy, argument from antiquity

Nice try.... but your comparison was with the American expansion being equivalent to Hitler's occupation of Europe in terms of justification. When you finish with your explanation then will be glad to elucidate my view.

 

Edit: To the peanut gallery, Ghogiel writes perfectly lucid and clear English so I don't need a translator

I did finish my explanation.

 

Unless you disagree with your own statement, Right by conquest, or have another justification for the legitimacy of a nation being founded or expanding on land occupied by another people or nation. Or contend that Hitler was all about right of conquest... you need to actually contend something for me to respond.

 

@HeyYou says: might equals right. Unless it's not. :unsure:

 

Try passing your argument in front of congress,

Would the right thing to do is kill them if possible? Then it's your congress at that point.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Ghogiel

[draconix]

what do you propose? Shall we all go back to our countries of 'origin'?

I already stated what I propose, which is simply to adopt a different policy towards immigrants which is less hypocritical. What that policy is, I couldn't say. Clearly, I am no politician.

 

So what would you say is the actual problem of immigrants coming to the United States freely? Why not allow people to travel between countries as we travel between states? Security? Entitlements? Taxation?

[Ghogiel]

BTW for the record I am not saying: China need to let go of Tibet, Israel needs to fall, or the Us need to give back it's land. I'm not hiding the fact that I do disagree with the justification they used to legitimise themselves. And believe it is morally questionable.

 

I am simply raising awareness about the belief in the right of conquest, and might is right. I am just saying our beliefs inform our actions.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Ghogiel

[HeyYou]

So your point is? I still don't follow, well I do but please state your opinion why the comparison is something you disagree with, if you wish to contend it.

Nope thats not how this works, you made the comparison you justify it. Just holding you to the standard that you are so fond of applying to others.

No. I don't think it is justifiable. On the contrary you might need to justify it.

 

Aurielius said:

Occupation by right of conquest is as old as civilization, we took the continent by fair means and foul and it's ours now.

 

edit: I was going to hold this one back, but just so you can come back with a better justification of might is right than a logical fallacy, argument from antiquity

Nice try.... but your comparison was with the American expansion being equivalent to Hitler's occupation of Europe in terms of justification. When you finish with your explanation then will be glad to elucidate my view.

 

Edit: To the peanut gallery, Ghogiel writes perfectly lucid and clear English so I don't need a translator

I did finish my explanation.

 

Unless you disagree with your own statement, Right by conquest, or have another justification for the legitimacy of a nation being founded or expanding on land occupied by another people or nation. Or contend that Hitler was all about right of conquest... you need to actually contend something for me to respond.

 

@HeyYou says: might equals right. Unless it's not. :unsure:

 

Try passing your argument in front of congress,

Would the right thing to do is kill them if possible? Then it's your congress at that point.

 

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that I am suggesting (that was convoluted....) that we should just kill them all off? If so, no, that is most certainly NOT what I am suggesting.

 

 

what do you propose? Shall we all go back to our countries of 'origin'?

I already stated what I propose, which is simply to adopt a different policy towards immigrants which is less hypocritical. What that policy is, I couldn't say. Clearly, I am no politician.

 

So what would you say is the actual problem of immigrants coming to the United States freely? Why not allow people to travel between countries as we travel between states? Security? Entitlements? Taxation?

 

Hypocritical in YOUR view. The majority of US citizens don't see it that way. And yes, all three of those issues.

[Ghogiel]

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that I am suggesting (that was convoluted....) that we should just kill them all off? If so, no, that is most certainly NOT what I am suggesting.

You seem to suggest that cherry picking cases where might is right would be.. err right. I just wanted to hear if there is an explanation for a case of might equals right, that isn't justified. In your opinion.

 

Also to just bring up congress again, it would seem at odds to plead a case against and to the very people, aka congress, that you say have no claim, and therefore no right to be doing things such as hear a case and pass judgement. For any fairness this needs to be taken to an independent adjudicator. It would be like a someone being a judge at their own trial. "I find myself not guilty."

 

It is absurd indeed.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Aurielius]

Unless you disagree with your own statement, Right by conquest, or have another justification for the legitimacy of a nation being founded or expanding on land occupied by another people or nation. Or contend that Hitler was all about right of conquest... you need to actually contend something for me to respond.

 

It seems you only like clarification and conciseness when it suits you. Once again you made the moral comparison of the American expansion to Hitler's conquest of Europe. As of yet you have not justified that statement. I fail to see the equivalence of morality and am reasonably sure most Americans don't either.

[Ghogiel]

Unless you disagree with your own statement, Right by conquest, or have another justification for the legitimacy of a nation being founded or expanding on land occupied by another people or nation. Or contend that Hitler was all about right of conquest... you need to actually contend something for me to respond.

 

It seems you only like clarification and conciseness when it suits you. Once again you made the moral comparison of the American expansion to Hitler's conquest of Europe. As of yet you have not justified that statement. I fail to see the equivalence of morality and am reasonably sure most Americans don't either.

I make the comparison they are both actions that happened and are justified by assertion that the philosophy of right by conquest is correct. Hitler considered it his right to conquer the world ultimately. Americans, like yourself, by your statement, consider that the conquest of America was justified by holding the philosophy of right by conquest. Hence the comparison of how they are justified.

 

Under this philosophy I made the distinction between the 2 things saying if you are mightier, and Hitler failed in this because he bit off more than he could chew and got pwned, then it is right. If he won, if nazi natiobn occupied Europe to this day, it would then justify itself under that philosophy. I also brought up Iraq invading Kuwait as another right by conquest attempt that failed, proving itself wrong. And occupation of Tibet and Israel are justified under this philosophy because they have proven themselves mightier.

[Aurielius]

Unless you disagree with your own statement, Right by conquest, or have another justification for the legitimacy of a nation being founded or expanding on land occupied by another people or nation. Or contend that Hitler was all about right of conquest... you need to actually contend something for me to respond.

 

It seems you only like clarification and conciseness when it suits you. Once again you made the moral comparison of the American expansion to Hitler's conquest of Europe. As of yet you have not justified that statement. I fail to see the equivalence of morality and am reasonably sure most Americans don't either.

I make the comparison they are both actions that happened and are justified by assertion that the philosophy of right by conquest is correct. Hitler considered it his right to conquer the world ultimately. Americans, like yourself, by your statement, consider that the conquest of America was justified by holding the philosophy of right by conquest. Hence the comparison of how they are justified.

 

Under this philosophy I made the distinction between the 2 things saying if you are mightier, and Hitler failed in this because he bit off more than he could chew and got pwned, then it is right. If he won, if nazi natiobn occupied Europe to this day, it would then justify itself under that philosophy. I also brought up Iraq invading Kuwait as another right by conquest attempt that failed, proving itself wrong. And occupation of Tibet and Israel are justified under this philosophy because they have proven themselves mightier.

No I made a statement of fact, the conquest of the American continent is de facto and there for a settled issue, I never endorsed any the concept..you are presuming to know what I think rather than what I write. I have said that occupation by right of conquest is as old as civilization itself, another statement of fact not an endorsement.

The morality equivalences that you draw are strained at best, prior to this exchange I had a grudging respect for you.

[greywaste]

Yup. A hundred or more years of immigration (which included many years of peaceful trading) that eventually gets ugly resulting in wars vs. blitzkrieg.

I understand some of the rationale being used to compare, but the comparison itself is just too far out to justify that rationale.