2024-03-29, 11:53 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Somebody shoot me  (Read 27095 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« on: 2006-03-28, 18:15 »

Quote
The bill to be debated by the US Senate this week targets the more than 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the United States by proposing that it become a criminal offense to be in the country illegally.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/28/0...0.5qwylcsk.html

Really... please.  Just shoot me right now.  Put me out of my misery.  I can't bear to read statements like these. Fainting
« Last Edit: 2006-03-28, 18:15 by Phoenix » Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
scalliano
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1095

Yup, that's me

« Reply #1 on: 2006-03-29, 00:17 »

Mere words simply cannot convey how pathetic that is.

Seriuously, though, what are they gonna do? What the hell do they expect to do with whomever of the 11.5 million people they actually manage to catch? Bang them up? Give me a break, this is effectively saying that it's illegal to be foreign.

This stinks. Bad.
Logged

PSN ID: scalliano

The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
Kain-Xavier
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 917

« Reply #2 on: 2006-03-29, 00:54 »

o.O  I would say that is a bit extreme too.

Besides, how would our legal system handle something like this?  Where would we house these "criminals?"  It seems somewhat foolish to house and feed an illegal immigrant in jail/prison when you want them out of your country so damn bad that you want to try them as a criminal.
« Last Edit: 2006-03-29, 00:55 by Kain-Xavier » Logged

Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #3 on: 2006-03-29, 01:29 »

I'm not sure what bothers me more, the original quote or the fact that 2 of 2 replies missed the point.  The point was regarding the language "criminal offense to be in the country illegally."  I even bolded it.

Recursive - def:  See recursive.  Let's see how you do with round 2.
 Slipgate - Shifty
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Thomas Mink
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 920

HeLLSpAwN

« Reply #4 on: 2006-03-29, 01:57 »

I saw it... but I didn't reply because I was unsure which meaning you meant. The one offered by the other two.. or the one about 'criminal' and 'illegal'.

I love word games, puns, and oxymorons... so I kinda of pick up on odd things like that... but no one else does, so I try to pick and choose.

But yes.. it's like saying an attempted suicide is punishable by death........ which I think I read somewhere.
« Last Edit: 2006-03-29, 02:01 by ~SpAwN~ » Logged

"Everybody's got a price" - 'The Million Dollar Man' Ted DiBiase
Kajet
 

Vadrigar
*********
Posts: 601

I have no clue what to put here...

« Reply #5 on: 2006-03-29, 02:09 »

Well natural selection is little more than a moot point anymore, it was only a matter of time before that started messing with inteligence...
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #6 on: 2006-03-29, 02:55 »

I don't believe in natural selection.  I cite humanity as obvious proof of its invalidity.  Slipgate - Smile~
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
jess
 
Archvile
*****
Posts: 134

« Reply #7 on: 2006-03-29, 07:21 »

damn pho... why don't you just rip us to shreds and get it over with
Logged
Woodsman
Icon of Booze
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 823

« Reply #8 on: 2006-03-29, 08:48 »

Quote from: scalliano
Give me a break, this is effectively saying that it's illegal to be foreign.
 
 That is most likely the dumbest argument ive heard on the immigration debate thus far. This would not make it illegal to be foreign your simply assuming everyone who immigrated to this country did so illegally which is not the case. The United States has more legal immigration on a yearly basis than every other country in the world combined ( according to an article i read awhile back in USA today ). You simply cannot have people coming and going without documentation with complete disregard for the law. Forget the terrorism issue the fact that the republic of Mexico refuses to extradite people who murder our citizens and flee to Mexico should be enough justification to close our borders. Lets not forget the Mexican army is in cahoots with drug dealers smuggling people across our borders. Many hard working immigrants became good American citizens because they obeyed the law and went through the proper channels when they came to this country legitimizing those who snuck under the fence would be spitting in their face.  And for the record anyone who entered and worked in this country illegally ( using public services without paying taxes, driving without insurance receiving medical care without paying ) is already breaking the law.
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #9 on: 2006-03-29, 15:07 »

Sorry jess, I couldn't resist a dig on Darwinism there. Slipgate - Grin

The reason I posted this is the debate should be a non-issue.  If you disect the word "illegal immigrant" the first word is illegal.  I find it ironic what they use for an example.  My point is that they are debating the passing of laws that would, in effect, criminalize what's already against the law in the first place.  Spawn was exactly right with his punishment analogy.  I'm not ranting on the problem of illegal immigration here, I've done that elsewhere.  My point was to draw focus to the elected leadership of this country and their blatant incompetence.  Stupidity is rampant within the halls of congress, right along with insanity, and nobody seems to be able to do anything about it.  Where are the statesmen?  Where are the Jeffersons, and Hamiltons, and Washingtons, and Franklins?  Their legacy has been reduced to the using of their likenesses as a commodity.  Where are the people of character, thought, and wisdom in this age?  It's like I'm standing here watching Nero string his harp all over again.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #10 on: 2006-03-29, 16:25 »

Let's say person P is walking around with (too much) drugs in his suitcase, but that P is unaware of this. The law tells us it is illegal to possess that amount of drugs.*

(* this happening in imaginary country C, or any country of your choice, as long as this will not devolve into a debate about specific laws and details)

I would not resist to P being called to be doing something illegal. It's right there in the law and he is currently the actor.

However, I would resist to P being called a criminal. The word, as I've stated before, has connotations (at least for the common audience - including a jury) that indicate that P is both aware of, and willfully doing, something illegal. He may be called ignorant or even stupid, but 'criminally stupid' or 'criminally ignorant' are not tautologies (although I agree that they should be, in some cases Slipgate - Wink).

To solve this twist, a few things could be done. The definition of legality could be adapted to the common notion, or alternatively, likewise for the definition of criminality. Or, a mass acknowledgement of the purely technical meaning of 'crime' and 'criminal' could be enforced and made exclusive. Since the latter is unlikely to happen, a fourth option may be useful: the use of words that lack the connotation of 'criminality', but have all the meaning of 'illegality'. We have such a words, for instance: 'illegal'. Why not use them, instead?

I stick to my (twice previously stated) opinion that it is silly to try and stick to purely technical meanings of words, since that's simply not what human beings do (and, I venture to boldy guess, nor do rational creatures that think themselves not to be human beings).
« Last Edit: 2006-03-29, 16:30 by Tabun » Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
shambler
 
Icon of Sin
**********
Posts: 999

« Reply #11 on: 2006-03-29, 17:28 »

We have the same problem, but the government only admits to about 500,000. I think they intend to sort out the problem by giving all the illigals citizenship. Really.

so you think you've got problems?

And we've got the north sea around us to help keep us clear. some people have been thrown out of the UK 3 times, but keep coming back - drug dealers, pimps etc.
Logged
Woodsman
Icon of Booze
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 823

« Reply #12 on: 2006-03-29, 18:16 »

Tab what the hell are you talking about? We aren't talking about legal technicality's here were talking about very real very practical concerns. An Illegal immigrant is still causing a problem weather or not they know what they are doing is illegal ( and they do don't kid yourself ). Its not possible to avoid classifying them as criminals because thats what they are there isn't any way around it. Now thats not to say they are hardened violent thugs and i believe most people don't see them that way anyway but we cant pretend there isn't a problem. I can sympathize with these people most of them just come here for work to support their family but they need to obey our laws. The fact that they are breaking the immigration laws is only one concern. I get the feeling a lot of people are under the impression that we only want the border laws enforced because we are without pity and don't like impoverished brown people. Well  thats simply not the case.
Logged
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #13 on: 2006-03-29, 18:44 »

Quote
Its not possible to avoid classifying them as criminals because thats what they are ....
Yes there is, and no they aren't (not indiscriminately I mean, and other than in a technical sense).

Quote
... there isn't any way around it.
There is a way around it, which was the point of my post.

Quote
Now thats not to say they are hardened violent thugs..
My problem is that that is exactly what is part of the connotations of the wording.

Quote
... and i believe most people don't see them that way anyway ...
Which is why we shouldn't use the aforementioned wording.

Quote
.. but we cant pretend there isn't a problem.
Ofcourse! There is a problem, and it won't go away by naming it differently. Don't make it look as though I said that; I didn't. Refraining from calling them what they are not - what they are not in a very important sense - will help in dealing with it properly. I'm not saying that it's a sufficient condition to do so, just that it may be a necessary one.

----

P.S. It's a little bit similar to calling coffee a drug in an important state-meeting (which it officially, technically is), then making it part of your famed (some would say overblown) War on Drugs.
« Last Edit: 2006-03-29, 18:52 by Tabun » Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #14 on: 2006-03-29, 20:07 »

Tab, I think we've established that you don't like the word criminal when it comes to minor infractions.  In a court of law, however, legal definitions are very strict and precise.  Someone who jaywalks is as much a criminal by definition as someone who guns down a schoolhouse in the sense that they are both violating a law.  The jaywalker however is not a felon, nor guilty of anything more than a minor misdemeanor (in the US anyway).  They broke the law, that is undisputable.  Was it a serious offence?  Not for the jaywalker.  Now I understand what you dislike is the stigma associated with the word criminal, but stigmas are assigned by society, not the dictionary.  I am not part of society, and I despise unwriten social rules.  However, I will take a moment to do an aside here.

Let's throw religion into the picture because it usually ends up in the discussion anyway (but this time it's actually on topic!)  Let's replace the word "criminal" with "sinner".  Now, look at the ten commandments.  Here they are (catholicism has them in a slightly different order):

1) I am the Lord thy God and thou shalt not have other gods besides me.
2) Thou shalt not make for thyself any graven image.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4) Remember the Lord's Day to keep it holy.
5) Honor thy Father and Mother.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Slipgate - Cool Thou shalt not steal.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10) Thou shalt not covet.

Now, let's say someone breaks a commandment.  That makes them a sinner, right?  You'd certainly say someone who murders or commits adultery is a sinner.  What about someone who says a little fib about the old lady next door?  What about the guy who is a little jealous because the guy up the street has a nicer lawn?  Surely that's not so bad.  But, according to the bible, Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."  This means severity is irrelevent as to what  defines a sinner - everyone is a sinner, no matter how major or minor their sin.  But let's say we define sinners only by those who don't break any of the ten commandments.  Let's leave out the minor infractions.  Well, that changes the whole focus of Christianity.  You no longer have to depend on Christ's sacrifice on the cross for redemption, now you just keep the 10 commandments and you get to heaven by your own account.  It's also carte blanche to go out and do whatever isn't serious.  The question to the believer, however, would be what God thinks of all this...  After all, it is God who gave the laws, and therefore God who defines what is and is not a sin.  Thinking that it's not a sin to do something minor does not absolve someone of guilt in God's eyes.

It's no different in the courtroom.  You see, it doesn't matter what a person thinks about a law, what matters is what those in authority will do if someone violates it.  This is where people fall into the trap of self-delusion.  "It's just a little pot" is something police officers and judges hear over and over in the US, where it is illegal to possess any amount.  Those who think it's not a crime get booked the same as those who know it is.  Whether we're talking about religious laws, or civil laws, those who have authority are the ones who set the rules.  Let's take your "imaginary country" for example, which is not so imaginary as all that.  I know you're allowed to possess a certain amount of pot in the Netherlands but only a certain amount.  I also know that in most countries ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.  Like they say, "tell it to the judge".  That's how the law works here, it may be different there, I do not know.  Now if you get mad at me for saying this just remember that I didn't write the law, nor is it my goal to approve or disapprove of any country's laws in this thread.  I'm merely presenting how those who enforce it tend to behave toward those who break it, whatever their feelings might be.

The greater question in regards to illegally entering the United States is one of selective enforcement, or rather, selective lack of enforcement.  Now this is a discussion about linguistic concerns so your rant about stigmatizing with words actually spins back into the equation in a rather interesting way.  The entire gripe I had from the beginning with this whole situation is that it is already illegal to enter the country improperly.  What they are discussing is making illegal something that's already illegal in the first place.  If it's already against the law, why does it need to be made against the law again?  Now to further illustrate my point of how absurd this all is becoming, take a look the quote from this article:

Quote
TIJUANA, Mexico (Reuters) - Hurling himself over a steel fence into the no-man's-land between Mexico and California, an undocumented migrant sprints across a narrow strip lit by harsh arc lights and watched over by video cameras on tall posts.
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060329/...O-FENCE-DC.html

Catch the term "undocumented migrant" in this hypothetical scenario (as reported by Reuters).  Undocumented migrant?  What is an undocumented migrant, exactly?  Is that a goose that didn't get a leg band on its trip back to Canada?  This is the first time I've heard this little term.  It sure sounds a lot less harsh than "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien", which was the term before alien was changed to immigrant.  To be honest, I'm not sure when that happened either.  I seem to remember George Carlin having a rant about toilet paper being renamed to bathroom tissue without him being informed.  Doesn't anyone get it besides me?  In changing the language, in "softening" everything, the words lose their meaning!  The entire purpose of changing language is to affect how people think.  The whole purpose for changing how you think is to make you more receptive to events and circumstances you otherwise would not be.  If it sounds softer you might miss the point or won't raise objection as easily, which means those changing the language get their way.

It is a sick little mind control game, and I hope to hell people wake up to it.  The legacy of "political correctness" is thought control.  If I offend a few people in raising alarm over it, so be it.  Tab, you get upset when someone calls an illegal immigrant a criminal.  What happens when they start calling murderers "unadjusted individuals" or some other meaningless "Newspeak" term?  Think it's not coming?  They aready call rapists "sex offenders" here for God's sake!  Will anyone stop this madness?[/color]
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #15 on: 2006-03-29, 20:27 »

I'm not advocating for calling illegal immigrants what they're not - that is precisely what I am advocating against. My position, however, is that calling illegal immigrants "criminals" is the same kind of mistake (or foul trick, if you will) as calling them "undocumented immigrants". In both cases the terms are technically 100% correct, but are used as tools to apply, or take away, the right amount of 'connotative force' from what is really meant. What really is meant is:"illegal immigrant" - which is exactly the term I think should be consistently (and if possible, exclusively) used, when this issue is discussed.
If the 'social machine' ends up distorting that term, by other means than media-machination, so be it.

I'm not at this time willing to touch the 'sinner'-debate, that is a laden term for me, especially when we're comparing two kinds of laws in this sense. I acknowledge and understand your position, though.
« Last Edit: 2006-03-29, 20:28 by Tabun » Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
scalliano
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1095

Yup, that's me

« Reply #16 on: 2006-03-30, 19:08 »

Actually, my hands are raised. In my first post I was kind of under the impression that this was some sort of intuitive test, a double-bluff if you like, so I played the race card to see what the craic was Slipgate - Wink I thought that the idea that the US government was incompetent was a given anyway. This just affirms that concept. Slipgate - Tongue

It's true that PC-ness is the biggest threat to freedom of opinion since McCarthyism. I find that all of these watered-down terms only serve to patronise rather than placate.

BTW Pho, the technical term where I'm from is "bog-roll" Slipgate - Grin

 Slipgate - Off Topic As for Natural Selection vs Intelligent Design, anyone got any BETTER explanantions? Slipgate - Wink
Logged

PSN ID: scalliano

The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
Kajet
 

Vadrigar
*********
Posts: 601

I have no clue what to put here...

« Reply #17 on: 2006-03-31, 01:44 »

well i guess i started the off topic natural sel. vs.int. design thing so i'll try to end it...

natual selection: strong, smart and otherwise better creatures live and pass on their genes I don't think its all encompassing as there are some lucky beings
proof of validity: handicapped beings will have a harder time survivng in a non-civilized place, weak and dumb beings will die easier

Intelligent design: humans were created to be better than everything else, they have some "divine right" to do with the world as they please.
proof of validity: no other creatures are like humans

am i saying one is better than the other? i'm not trying to... merely stating what i see... i am not saying one is right and the other isn't, just that they both have some convincing portions. nor am i saying i have the answer to such a question... but you can admit both are not mutually exclusive, as i stated them

now back to biching about illeagals i say kick their asses out put up some big assed walls and execute repeat offenders... man i'm being blunt and probably offesive... but you wanna live in the US get your DAMN CITIZENSHIP!

oh and before i'm done and since no one else has *me shoots at pho*
« Last Edit: 2006-03-31, 01:54 by Kajet » Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #18 on: 2006-03-31, 02:29 »

Quote from: Kajet
Intelligent design: humans were created to be better than everything else, they have some "divine right" to do with the world as they please.
proof of validity: no other creatures are like humans
I disagree with the "divine right" to "do with as they please" part.  I believe it to be more of a stewardship, where man should be a caretaker that is responsible for preserving and protecting this world, not pillaging and plundering it.  Man does not own the earth.

Unfortunately those who are best suited to govern are never those who are given the governerships, so the cycle of bad leadership continues.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #19 on: 2006-03-31, 08:30 »

Slipgate - Off Topic
ID-theory is halfway between fatalistic acceptance of mystery and theorizing. Nobody can say it's either in correspondence with reality or not, which is its 'strength'.
Natural selection is part of a theory that a true proponent does not care about being in correspondence with reality or not: it is pragmatically justified, it works. As soon as it stops working, or needs to be adjusted - that's what happens.
There are dogmatic NS'ists who think otherwise, but most of them hardly know the subject-matter (or elegance and power) of what they say to be a proponent of. Me, I think any theory that does not on the outset assume defeat has its uses. It doesn't work for you? Find a theory that tells us more, not less.
There's many more reasons why this little rant makes sense and about the differences between science, pseudo-science - scientists and 'scientist'-dogmatists (the latter being annoyingly present on either side of every science-related debate), but I guess I've gone and overtyped this 'aside' already.
Slipgate - Off Topic
« Last Edit: 2006-03-31, 08:31 by Tabun » Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to: