Fifth Avenue Forum

Tonight in "Fake, but Accurate"

Father of the now famous photo of the little girl crying [Time cover] says his wife/child were never separated at any time by authorities, that his wife was seeking a job (not fleeing violence), and that he is upset w/ her for taking his child on the dangerous journey.

https://mobile.twitter.com/esaagar/stat ... 1791936513

Don't you think it comes off as a bit of sour grapes to be whinging and complaining when someone puts to use the rules of the game you've agreed to play in a manner which you disapprove?

Addressing the former point, yes - rejecting The Game, let alone The Rules is the only moral option.

But "rules" evolve over time...

whinging about rules that seem unfair can result (if the whinging is hard enough and done correctly) the change of said rules.

Don't you think it comes off as a bit of sour grapes to be whinging and complaining when someone puts to use the rules of the game you've agreed to play in a manner which you disapprove?

Addressing the former point, yes - rejecting The Game, let alone The Rules is the only moral option.

Everyone here has agreed to the rules in the same way you have. We live here. You “reject the game” (whatever that means in practice), while others would like some of the rules changed. Sour grapes applies to all of us I guess.

Don't you think it comes off as a bit of sour grapes to be whinging and complaining when someone puts to use the rules of the game you've agreed to play in a manner which you disapprove?

Addressing the former point, yes - rejecting The Game, let alone The Rules is the only moral option.

Everyone here has agreed to the rules in the same way you have. We live here. You “reject the game” (whatever that means in practice), while others would like some of the rules changed. Sour grapes applies to all of us I guess.

Always love this argument... Especially great when it comes from a "teacher". Hey Guinness, here's your choices: you can stay here and we'll continue to pillage you as we see fit, OR you can move to some other place on the planet where they'll pillage you as they see fit; or you can stand on your principles in which case we WILL kidnap you, take all of your possessions, and if you resist any of that we'll murder you.

Good to know the "citizens of tomorrow" are in such good hands!

I also appreciate the teacher side-stepping the moral issue. But again, publik state skools and all.

Don't you think it comes off as a bit of sour grapes to be whinging and complaining when someone puts to use the rules of the game you've agreed to play in a manner which you disapprove?

Addressing the former point, yes - rejecting The Game, let alone The Rules is the only moral option.

Everyone here has agreed to the rules in the same way you have. We live here. You “reject the game” (whatever that means in practice), while others would like some of the rules changed. Sour grapes applies to all of us I guess.

Always love this argument... Especially great when it comes from a "teacher". Hey Guinness, here's your choices: you can stay here and we'll continue to pillage you as we see fit, OR you can move to some other place on the planet where they'll pillage you as they see fit; or you can stand on your principles in which case we WILL kidnap you, take all of your possessions, and if you resist any of that we'll murder you.

Good to know the "citizens of tomorrow" are in such good hands!

I also appreciate the teacher side-stepping the moral issue. But again, publik state skools and all.

Ohhhh, “teacher.” Sick burn.

That wasn’t my argument at all, so try again. My point is that we’re all in the same boat, we just address it differently. And while you say how morally superior you are, way to dodge the point about what it means in practice for you to “reject the game.” It seems that you mostly just want to tell people that they’re morally beneath you.

And just to make sure the topic of discussion remains focused, I entered into the discussion to point out the disparity of outrage between enforcement of arbitrary border crossing laws and their consequences (i.e., separation of children from parents) and a whole bunch of other arbitrary laws of which no one is an actual victim... and their consequences (i.e., separation of children from parents).

Selective outrage. Please do continue.

And just to make sure the topic of discussion remains focused, I entered into the discussion to point out the disparity of outrage between enforcement of arbitrary border crossing laws and their consequences (i.e., separation of children from parents) and a whole bunch of other arbitrary laws of which no one is an actual victim... and their consequences (i.e., separation of children from parents).

Selective outrage. Please do continue.

I don't think border crossing laws are arbitrary.

I think the practice of this administration telling refugees and asylum seekers to **** off is a problem. I think there are international laws and norms that are being crossed by this practice, but there really isn't like some governing body capable of making DHS treat these people differently.

Guinness, you’re obviously morally superior to me. Just look at the content of your posts here compared to mine, and that’s all most people need to see to make that judgement. In actual life, how does that moral superiority play out? How does your morality impact the world more than my lack of morality? In a real way, not in the “you stand for this and i stand for ‘self’” way that actually doesn’t impact anything.

Hurray... this again.

Don't you think it comes off as a bit of sour grapes to be whinging and complaining when someone puts to use the rules of the game you've agreed to play in a manner which you disapprove?

subterfuge.

Don't you think it comes off as a bit of sour grapes to be whinging and complaining when someone puts to use the rules of the game you've agreed to play in a manner which you disapprove?

The problem is they aren't playing by the agreed rules, to indulge your silliness.

Asylum is a recognized fundamental human right under US and international law. Lumping those that are attempting to seek it in with the actual illegal crossing crowd by preventing their ability to cross at the designated ports of entry - coupled with the zero tolerance policy that necessitates separation of families, as adults are processed criminally as illegal immigrants and children are processed administratively as 'unaccompanied minors' despite the fact that that is patently untrue - is repugnant and directly opposite of the 'rules'.

Just look to yesterday's court filing in California where AG Sessions is making a move to change those rules so that the new policy will be in compliance. This is disgusting no matter how you slice it, provided you are approaching it from the perspective of someone who's plugged into reality and not floating around a world colored by dorm room philosophy.

Guinness, you’re obviously morally superior to me. Just look at the content of your posts here compared to mine, and that’s all most people need to see to make that judgement. In actual life, how does that moral superiority play out? How does your morality impact the world more than my lack of morality? In a real way, not in the “you stand for this and i stand for ‘self’” way that actually doesn’t impact anything.

How does ANY of this actually impact the world? This is a backwater message board with a handful of people chatting about nothing. I don't care about any of this anymore. I just took today off and am killing time until the cable guy shows up, before then going to lunch with my wife.

What do you want me to say? This is how I view the world. You view the world in your particularly corrupted way. My way is the RIGHT way to view human interaction. Yours is definitively based on violence. So what? You win. Your view of the world holds total and complete dominance in society at large. Congratulations. I'm just commenting on what I see here, just like everyone else... and frankly everyone else posting here has the EXACT SAME PRESUMPTION of moral superiority. They just don't say it explicitly. Probably because they can't actually back it up (and they know it).

Are they arresting asylum seekers or those rejected asylum that then cross illegally?

I immediately regret engaging on the G-man angle.