"One cannot be racist against mexican..."

[logger]

He is kinda right. I'm not sure saying birtherism was driven by racism is something that can be proven. It can be inferred, but I doubt there is some smoking gun. There won't be a "jinx" moment.

Its interesting on a skeptics forum how so many leftist "skeptics" go on feelings.

But liberalism is driven by emotion, so they can make these desperate disgusting accusations.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So, not only do you demand an impossible burden, but now it has to be the "primary" reason, whatever that means.




This is a very clever way to never have to deal with reality.

Skepticism requires we ask for evidence of cause when someone makes a claim about cause. Correlation won't cut it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Its interesting on a skeptics forum how so many leftist "skeptics" go on feelings.

But liberalism is driven by emotion, so they can make these desperate disgusting accusations.

I would like it if you blocked me.

 

[TraneWreck]

Not to people experiencing it, [SNIP].

This shouldn't be so hard. Who are these suffering people? How are they suffering? Surely you have some evidence other than your assertions.

[SNIP]

Not meaningless, just not super important. Do you think there's a difference between shoplifting a candy bar and capital murder?

Some laws are unjust or impractical. Amazingly, we have the ability to rewrite those rules. Ask your buddy Cliven Bundy.

[SNIP]

Haha, all you have to do is make your case, and yet we just get these emotional outbursts from you - lashing out against the reality you can't evade.

Yes because as a builder he sees the many problems of people working here illegally. [SNIP]

Anecdote. Establish the case. How is that damaging?

If it's simple, you should have no trouble making the case.

Let me give you an example. Smoking cigarettes are dangerous, why? Because they are linked to a ton of health problems. Here is information on that:

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/

Do the same with immigration. Show me what the problems are.

Really, breaking the law to get here doesn't give you a clue to illegals breaking more laws. How about the gangs? How many times have I read where an illegal got caught driving drunk? Or raping, murdering? Yes I know you'll say the statistics are so small, it doesn't even compare with our usual criminals.

Good lord. How sad. You reading stories from you feverish pit of right wing paranoia is not data.

Again, immigrants, undocumented and otherwise, commit crimes at a lower rate than other Americans:

Undocumented immigrants generally are half as likely as other people in the United States to commit these types of serious crimes [murder, sexual assault...].

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-wrong-about-undocumented-immigrants-and-crime-591629

Your data is from leftist liberal rags. It means absolutely nothing.

This is such a sad refrain from you. It shows that people on the right are completely driven by emotion. Can't deal with reality, call reality leftist and add a "lol."

[SNIP]You would think with people being so racist about this you would have mountains of evidence of people saying racist comments, but you don't, you have people talking about securing the border, nothing else. [SNIP]

Nope. I link facts, studies, investigations. You're running on pure guesswork.

By many ways, why don't you go and ask them? Maybe they'll tell you they start by stopping little old white ladies.

Because there's no way they could have overstayed their Visa, right? Only obviously brown people do that.

Lol
A typical dodge, go ahead, I've performed so poorly, it ought to be easy for you to put up my racist hidden notions. [SNIP]

What am I dodging, your laughter? That made even less sense than usual.

Another lie, you sure seem like you're for open borders, what's the harm?

Edited by kmortis: 

1) Fixed broken quote tag.
2) Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

Haha, you want me to make your case for you? Hilarious.

You are the one asserting that there is some harm caused by illegal immigration. You are completely incapable of showing that harm.

Go ahead and provide facts to support your emotional bias, and I will respond with evidence explaining why I'm not a proponent of open borders. You were challenged, surely you won't continue to evade like a coward.

 

[TraneWreck]

Skepticism requires we ask for evidence of cause when someone makes a claim about cause. Correlation won't cut it.

Yes, and I'm happy to show you evidence. As I said, the problem is that you will reject the obvious conclusions of that evidence because dealing with social science issues is more complicated than showing 1=1=2.

Your standard is such that, for example, no one could ever be convicted of a crime.

Consider the charge of premeditation. Absent a person writing, "I'm going to kill ____," is there any behavior that could ever prove premeditation to your satisfaction?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, and I'm happy to show you evidence. As I said, the problem is that you will reject the obvious conclusions of that evidence because dealing with social science issues is more complicated than showing 1=1=2.

Your standard is such that, for example, no one could ever be convicted of a crime.

Consider the charge of premeditation. Absent a person writing, "I'm going to kill ____," is there any behavior that could ever prove premeditation to your satisfaction?

Premeditation is the act of planning the crime and there are actions involved. A person can premeditate on a crime without having to know "why" they have a desire to commit the crime.

But I am extremely skeptical about the fact finding process in criminal justice that would likely jeopardize my ability to sit on a jury. So probably not a good thing to reference with me as I am just as likely to argue with any standard in the court system.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Which is why I said logger was kinda right. It isn't something proven. But proving why we do things is overrated.

Which is why I say that your point is pointless, but I've gotten used to that.

 

[TraneWreck]

Premeditation is the act of planning the crime and there are actions involved. A person can premeditate on a crime without having to know "why" they have a desire to commit the crime.

Look, this is a perfect example of the game you play.

The "why" is that they want to kill someone. That's the important causal relationship for finding someone guilty of premeditated murder. Asking them why they want to plan to murder someone may or may not be interesting, but it isn't super relevant to proving guilt.

That's like saying a person doesn't need to know why they're racist in order to behaving accordingly. This is a pointless game that can keep going back to infinity.

Premeditation is a mental state that can be inferred by behavior. We don't need to know why they want to murder someone to draw those inferences. If we want to discover motive, a separate and not necessary element to proving guilt, we would engage in the same type of inference.

Racism is a mental state that can be inferred by behavior. We don't need to know why they're racist to draw proper inferences.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Which is why I say that your point is pointless, but I've gotten used to that.

The point is informing Parsman of the ultimate difficulty in Parsman's contemplation of arguing assertively that birtherism is "driven by racism."

 

[TraneWreck]

But I am extremely skeptical about the fact finding process in criminal justice that would likely jeopardize my ability to sit on a jury. So probably not a good thing to reference with me as I am just as likely to argue with any standard in the court system.

Yes, that was my point. These discussions with you are completely useless because you've invented a standard of proof for yourself that totally paralyzes you for public policy discussions. The fact that you couldn't serve on a jury is exactly the same reason why no one on planet Earth will be able to provide you with the evidence you want because it doesn't exist, nor could it ever barring the creation of some omnipotent super-computer, or something.

That's fine if you want to live that way, but you love to interject yourself into conversations and play this role.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Look, this is a perfect example of the game you play.

The "why" is that they want to kill someone. That's the important causal relationship for finding someone guilty of premeditated murder. Asking them why they want to plan to murder someone may or may not be interesting, but it isn't super relevant to proving guilt.

That's like saying a person doesn't need to know why they're racist in order to behaving accordingly. This is a pointless game that can keep going back to infinity.

Premeditation is a mental state that can be inferred by behavior. We don't need to know why they want to murder someone to draw those inferences.

Racism is a mental state that can be inferred by behavior. We don't need to know why they're racist to draw proper inferences.

I absolutely agree with all of this. I thought this is what I was saying.

You said the following

"Asking them why they want to plan to murder someone may or may not be interesting, but it isn't super relevant to proving guilt."

Maybe I am misreading the statement "driven by racism," but that sounds like trying to prove "why they want to plan to murder."

 

[TraneWreck]

I absolutely agree with all of this. I thought this is what I was saying.

You said the following

"Asking them why they want to plan to murder someone may or may not be interesting, but it isn't super relevant to proving guilt."

Maybe I am misreading the statement "driven by racism" wrong, but that sounds like trying to prove "why they want to plan to murder."

Perhaps the analogy was needlessly confusing. I was just thinking of a different context to demonstrate how unrealistic your stance is. Take a different element: motive. This is a more or less direct analogy to what we're discussing with birtherism and immigration.

How do you prove a motive to commit murder? Behavior is examined. History is examined. Who the person was is examined.

Do you think it's proper to say the motive for lynching a black person in the South in the 1950's was racism? How would you prove that? Could it ever be proven to your standard?

Take the specific case of Emmett Till. Do you think racism played a role in that murder? If so, how do you know? What specific evidence allows you to conclude that racism drove that murder. If you don't think it drove the crime, explain where your doubts lie.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Perhaps the analogy was needlessly confusing. I was just thinking of a different context to demonstrate how unrealistic your stance is. Take a different element: motive. This is a more or less direct analogy to what we're discussing with birtherism and immigration.

How do you prove a motive to commit murder? Behavior is examined. History is examined. Who the person was is examined.

Do you think it's proper to say the motive for lynching a black person in the South in the 1950's was racism? How would you prove that? Could it ever be proven to your standard?

Take the specific case of Emmett Till. Do you think racism played a role in that murder? If so, how do you know? What specific evidence allows you to conclude that racism drove that murder. If you don't think it drove the crime, explain where your doubts lie.

I would have to say I don't know enough on the subject to draw conclusions.

 

[TraneWreck]

I would have to say I don't know enough on the subject to draw conclusions.

It's one of the most famous cases in American history. There is ample information available. It is a discreet, obvious case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

I think this is instructive. I am legitimately curious if you think that case presents enough information to conclude the murderers were racist driven by racism.

Whether you answer yes or no, we will have a great deal to go on. If yes, we can use similar evidence to prove racial bias in other cases; if no, then it's pretty obvious there's not point in discussing any of this.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's one of the most famous cases in American history. There is ample information available. It is a discreet, obvious case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

I think this is instructive. I am legitimately curious if you think that case presents enough information to conclude the murderers were racist driven by racism.

Whether you answer yes or no, we will have a great deal to go on. If yes, we can use similar evidence to prove racial bias in other cases; if no, then it's pretty obvious there's not point in discussing any of this.

Sorry, I don't know enough on this case to have an opinion on it. I'm obviously familiar with it, but that isn't the same thing. Maybe later I can read up on it and get back to you.

 

[Mumbles]

No, it's hardball politics, but since you see a racist around every corner.....

First, "racist" and "hardball" are not mutually exclusive, so that's not even a defense.

ASecond, there's a very long history of trying to deny the "american-ness" of black Americans, and birtherism - the belief that Obama is not American despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - falls directly in line with that tradition.

Besides, if someone supports a racist organisation like black lives matter, it's a good bet they're a racist.

At this point, I think we can safely say that either you have no idea what BLM is about, or you have no idea what racism is - or both. No matter how much you insist otherwise, being against police brutality is not racism.

 

[logger]

First, "racist" and "hardball" are not mutually exclusive, so that's not even a defense.

But it is a fact and you're just guessing.

ASecond, there's a very long history of trying to deny the "american-ness" of black Americans, and birtherism - the belief that Obama is not American despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - falls directly in line with that tradition.

so it must be racism.

At this point, I think we can safely say that either you have no idea what BLM is about, or you have no idea what racism is - or both. No matter how much you insist otherwise, being against police brutality is not racism.

Except the high profile cases where this group has been involved, force was justified. No matter how much crying your side does, that force isn't ever going to change.

 

[Cleon]

Did they ever do a study on the racism of Obama supporters?

And yes WAPO is extreme left, only a leftist would claim them not. Just like you used Vox, another extreme left rag. I'll point them out to you from now on since you can't seem to figure it out on your own.

Snort.

"Workers' Vanguard" is extreme left. WaPo is middle-of-the-road liberal.

 

[logger]

This shouldn't be so hard. Who are these suffering people? How are they suffering? Surely you have some evidence other than your assertions.

They compete directly with illegal labor.

Not meaningless, just not super important. Do you think there's a difference between shoplifting a candy bar and capital murder?

Yes, the law say there is a difference.

Some laws are unjust or impractical. Amazingly, we have the ability to rewrite those rules. Ask your buddy Cliven

We're not going to give you open borders, sorry. Bundy was no difference in his theft than an illegal alien and their theft. Did you think my love for law enforcement was going to excuse a fool like him. And yes, he is a racist.

Haha, all you have to do is make your case, and yet we just get these emotional outbursts from you - lashing out against the reality you can't evade.

We've already established you aren't in reality with your thinking there's a racist around every corner.

Anecdote. Establish the case. How is that damaging?

If it's simple, you should have no trouble making the case.

Let me give you an example. Smoking cigarettes are dangerous, why? Because they are linked to a ton of health problems. Here is information on that:

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/

Do the same with immigration. Show me what the problems are.

No I don't think I will, plenty of studies and opinions on both sides, you've proven to only believe your made up chosen narrative. I'm not wasting my time. Plenty of googling for you to study it.

Good lord. How sad. You reading stories from you feverish pit of right wing paranoia is not data.

You've stolen that from me, I've already accused you of it.

Again, immigrants, undocumented and otherwise, commit crimes at a lower rate than other Americans:

Yeah sure, and this means we shouldn't enforce our borders?

This is such a sad refrain from you. It shows that people on the right are completely driven by emotion. Can't deal with reality, call reality leftist and add a "lol."

Lol
Stealing from me again, I've already accused you of this, try to come up with something on your own.

Nope. I link facts, studies, investigations. You're running on pure guesswork.

Because there's no way they could have overstayed their Visa, right? Only obviously brown people do that.

Your words again!

What am I dodging, your laughter? That made even less sense than usual.

Another dodge, put up my hidden racist thoughts go ahead mind reader. Put up what you think you know. What are my hidden racist notions.


Haha, you want me to make your case for you? Hilarious.

You are the one asserting that there is some harm caused by illegal immigration. You are completely incapable of showing that harm.[/quote]
I don't have to show harm, reread what this thread is about, it might help your lack of comprehension.

Go ahead and provide facts to support your emotional bias, and I will respond with evidence explaining why I'm not a proponent of open borders. You were challenged, surely you won't continue to evade like a coward.

The only coward is you, its quite simple that crossing our border is a crime. The height of cowardess when calling people racist because you have some sort of feeling about them. Your first clue would be thinking I liked or agreed with Bundy.

The reasons for not having an open border are many. The law is simple enough to secure our borders. If you want to start a thread on why we should have borders, go right ahead.

 

[logger]

Snort.

"Workers' Vanguard" is extreme left. WaPo is middle-of-the-road liberal.

Am I supposed to be surprised at your snort?