Intellectual Dishonesty on Illegal Immigration

Warfish · 06-25-2012, 11:47 AM

When people are against Illegal Immigration, and are labeled as being against "immigration".

When the issue is Illegal Immigration, it's costs and effects, and many in the media only use the term Immigration.

When clearly the right is working to stem/enforce against Illegal Immigration, and are widely desribed as "Nativists" and being against "Immigration", which implies ALL immigration, not just illegal.

This is an issue of willful intellectual dishonesty and manipulation of uninformed public sentiment.

There is no meaningful movement in the United States against Immigration or Immigration Law.

There is ONLY a meaningful movement against ILLEGAL immigration, and enforcement of existing, on the books Law passed by Congress(es) and signed by the President(s) that made unlawful entrance intot he U.S. unlawful.

How can we expect to have any meaningful debate on the issue, when the issue at hand is so obviously and willfully misrepresented?

JetPotato · 06-25-2012, 11:52 AM

Add it to the list of bogeymen created for just about every issue that exists:

Abortion
National Healthcare
Tax Policy
Campaign Finance Reform
Defense
Welfare Programs
Social Security
Civil Rights
Education

To be honest, I can't think of an issue where this kind of crap doesn't exist from one side, the other, or both.

Increased polarization is a direct result of an increasingly uninformed public that continues to gobble this simplestic garbage up.

FF2® · 06-25-2012, 11:52 AM

I am thinking because you very rarely see someone who is against Illegal Immigrations discuss it by offering realistic solution to the problem.

"Ship them all back because its the law" is naive.

Warfish · 06-25-2012, 12:04 PM

[QUOTE=FF2®;4500009]I am thinking because you very rarely see someone who is against Illegal Immigrations discuss it by offering realistic solution to the problem.

"Ship them all back because its the law" is naive.[/QUOTE]

So is "Stop Global Warming Now", "Healthcare for All Now", "End Poverty Now", "End Wealth Inequallity Now" and "No More Foreign Wars", yet thats never stopped some folks from being very supportive of those ideas, including some on this very forum.

Even being for 100% enforcement of Immigration Law does not make one against Immigration. It makes one against ILLEGAL Immigration and against non-enforcement of existing Law, there is no basis for extended that position to being a "nativist" or being against all immigrants of all kinds.

You relaize that your position boils down to "the Law is bad, ignore it". And you describe us as naive? Do you not see the problems a view like "Laws i bad, ignore it if you feel like it" can cause? if not now, then later on some other issue of import?

DeanPatsFan · 06-25-2012, 12:05 PM

[QUOTE=FF2®;4500009]I am thinking because you very rarely see someone who is against Illegal Immigrations discuss it by offering realistic solution to the problem.

"Ship them all back because its the law" is naive.[/QUOTE]

Heavy fines and jail sentences for those who employ them should do well to curb the problem...

They'll go back on their own....

Winstonbiggs · 06-25-2012, 12:08 PM

The law needs to meet our needs and be effective in order to have broad support. Crappy law doesn’t deserve broad support and that’s the reason this obvious question doesn’t have an obvious answer.

It's willfully dishonest to think people should blindly support crappy law or policy in a democracy.

Warfish · 06-25-2012, 12:13 PM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4500030]It's willfully dishonest to think people should blindly support crappy law or policy in a democracy.[/QUOTE]

No, it's dishonest to outright ignore the existing Law just because it's "bad" to some minority of the populace, instead of following the legislative process to change it.

I am ALL FOR chainging immigration Law if change needs to be made for OUR (the Citizens) benefit, and/or to make teh system more workable and better for us as a Nation.

I am not for "reform" by a precedence of ignoring the Law, not enforcing teh Law, and pandering via this lawlessness to a racial group to try and win votes.

Want change, legislate change. Change via lawlessness is not the kind of change we should be looking for, on this or any other issue.

None of whcih touches on the issue here, that describing it as being "Immigration" instead of "ILLEGAL Immigration" is patently dishonest and willfully changes the entire crux of the debate at the very start.

doggin94it · 06-25-2012, 12:30 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4500036]No, it's dishonest to outright ignore the existing Law just because it's "bad" to some minority of the populace, instead of following the legislative process to change it.

I am ALL FOR chainging immigration Law if change needs to be made for OUR (the Citizens) benefit, and/or to make teh system more workable and better for us as a Nation.

I am not for "reform" by a precedence of ignoring the Law, not enforcing teh Law, and pandering via this lawlessness to a racial group to try and win votes.

Want change, legislate change. Change via lawlessness is not the kind of change we should be looking for, on this or any other issue.

None of whcih touches on the issue here, that describing it as being "Immigration" instead of "ILLEGAL Immigration" is patently dishonest and willfully changes the entire crux of the debate at the very start.[/QUOTE]

Agreed 100%

Winstonbiggs · 06-25-2012, 12:34 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4500036]No, it's dishonest to outright ignore the existing Law just because it's "bad" to some minority of the populace, instead of following the legislative process to change it.

I am ALL FOR chainging immigration Law if change needs to be made for OUR (the Citizens) benefit, and/or to make teh system more workable and better for us as a Nation.

I am not for "reform" by a precedence of ignoring the Law, not enforcing teh Law, and pandering via this lawlessness to a racial group to try and win votes.

Want change, legislate change. Change via lawlessness is not the kind of change we should be looking for, on this or any other issue.

None of whcih touches on the issue here, that describing it as being "Immigration" instead of "ILLEGAL Immigration" is patently dishonest and willfully changes the entire crux of the debate at the very start.[/QUOTE]

Clearly part of our immigration policy is to allow illegals in when it suits us. That's been the polcy for decades under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The fact that we now have a real political constituency in our midst as a result of our policy will ultimately change policy into law.

FF2® · 06-25-2012, 12:39 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4500025]So is "Stop Global Warming Now", "Healthcare for All Now", "End Poverty Now", "End Wealth Inequallity Now" and "No More Foreign Wars", yet thats never stopped some folks from being very supportive of those ideas, including some on this very forum.

Even being for 100% enforcement of Immigration Law does not make one against Immigration. It makes one against ILLEGAL Immigration and against non-enforcement of existing Law, there is no basis for extended that position to being a "nativist" or being against all immigrants of all kinds.

You relaize that your position boils down to "the Law is bad, ignore it". And you describe us as naive? Do you not see the problems a view like "Laws i bad, ignore it if you feel like it" can cause? if not now, then later on some other issue of import?[/QUOTE]

I realize you aren't not anti immigration. I am not debating the actual law here. I am merely trying to answer your question as why you may be perceived that way.

What ever side you are against will always paint you in the extreme to lessen your integrity. On any issue.

Hey, people for abortion rights are "baby-killers." AMIRITE?

If you want birth control you must be a "slut."

You're voting Obama? You're a socialist.

Axil · 06-25-2012, 12:39 PM

[QUOTE=FF2®;4500009]I am thinking because you very rarely see someone who is against Illegal Immigrations discuss it by offering realistic solution to the problem.

"Ship them all back because its the law" is naive.[/QUOTE]

If people against Illegal Immigrations are rarely able to support thier position with rational options, why is it necessary to further discredit them by misrepresenting their views?

FF2® · 06-25-2012, 12:41 PM

[QUOTE=Axil;4500065]If people against Illegal Immigrations are rarely able to support thier position with rational options, why is it necessary to further discredit them by misrepresenting their views?[/QUOTE]

See my post above. It's about framing the argument to match your views.

Warfish · 06-25-2012, 12:44 PM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4500060]Clearly part of our immigration policy is to allow illegals in when it suits us.[/quote]

Policy is not Law. Thats the problem.

And again, it does not touch on the fact we're discussing, that those for enforcement of Law are being (wrongfully) described as "Anti-Immigration".

I'm not interested in rationalization for WHY we are ignoring existing Law here, we're debating that in at least 4 other threads right now.

The issue here is one of intellectual dishonesty, i.e. demonization of a group by both one side of the political aisle, and by the vast majority of our media.

FF2® · 06-25-2012, 12:48 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4500073]Policy is not Law. Thats the problem.

And again, it does not touch on the fact we're discussing, that those for enforcement of Law are being (wrongfully) described as "Anti-Immigration".

I'm not interested in rationalization for WHY we are ignoring existing Law here, we're debating that in at least 4 other threads right now.

The issue here is one of intellectual dishonesty, i.e. demonization of a group by both one side of the political aisle, and by the vast majority of our media.[/QUOTE]

Every group is demonized by an opposing group. Welcome to politics, 2012.

Warfish · 06-25-2012, 12:49 PM

[QUOTE=FF2®;4500063]I realize you aren't not anti immigration.[/quote]

As a legal immigrant, any such claim would be quite funny.

[QUOTE]What ever side you are against will always paint you in the extreme to lessen your integrity. On any issue.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but lets look at your example, and see if they hold up vs. describing people as "Anti-Immigration".

[quote]Hey, people for abortion rights are "baby-killers." AMIRITE?[/quote]

Abortion terminates a living fetus. Describing it as "Pro-Choice" is intellectually dishonest, as the thing being terminated in an abortion is not a "choice", it's a Fetus.

Intellectual Honesty would "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion". Because the issue is Abortion, not choice.

[QUOTE]If you want birth control you must be a "slut."[/QUOTE]

No. If you want Birth Control (on your dime), it's a 100% non-issue.

if you want Birth-Control paid for by the Taxpayer, then the Taxpayer is going to question why you think you deserve it for free on our dime.

In either case, only a tiny fraction of one side uses terminology like "slut". And certainly not the whole of one side, and certainly not the majority of the media as with "Anti-Immigration".

[quote]You're voting Obama? You're a socialist.[/QUOTE]

A debate for another thread. But yes, being for Obama is MORE Pro-Socialist Policy than being Pro-Romney. As our good friend Safety says, it's a matter of degree of Socialism, as unquestionably we already have Socialism in America as is.

FF2® · 06-25-2012, 12:53 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4500083]As a legal immigrant, any such claim would be quite funny.

Yes, but lets look at your example, and see if they hold up vs. describing people as "Anti-Immigration".

Abortion terminates a living fetus. Describing it as "Pro-Choice" is intellectually dishonest, as the thing being terminated in an abortion is not a "choice", it's a Fetus.

Intellectual Honesty would "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion". Because the issue is Abortion, not choice.

No. If you want Birth Control (on your dime), it's a 100% non-issue.

if you want Birth-Control paid for by the Taxpayer, then the Taxpayer is going to question why you think you deserve it for free on our dime.

In either case, only a tiny fraction of one side uses terminology like "slut". And certainly not the whole of one side, and certainly not the majority of the media as with "Anti-Immigration".

A debate for another thread. But yes, being for Obama is MORE Pro-Socialist Policy than being Pro-Romney. As our good friend Safety says, it's a matter of degree of Socialism, as unquestionably we already have Socialism in America as is.[/QUOTE]

You're totally missing the point, its not whether any of those things are TRUE...the ANTI side to any group will paint you with any negative image which will hurt your cause the most.

This is MARKETING, not truth.

Winstonbiggs · 06-25-2012, 12:56 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4500073]Policy is not Law. Thats the problem.

And again, it does not touch on the fact we're discussing, that those for enforcement of Law are being (wrongfully) described as "Anti-Immigration".

I'm not interested in rationalization for WHY we are ignoring existing Law here, we're debating that in at least 4 other threads right now.

The issue here is one of intellectual dishonesty, i.e. demonization of a group by both one side of the political aisle, and by the vast majority of our media.[/QUOTE]

Existing law doesn't work. Lawmakers or candidates who support enforcement of existing law are full of **** and deserve to be demonized.

Axil · 06-25-2012, 12:59 PM

[QUOTE=FF2®;4500068]See my post above. It's about framing the argument to match your views.[/QUOTE]

Right... and that's politically useful in many cases. It's also intellectually dishonest, which is what i thought they topic was.

doggin94it · 06-25-2012, 01:00 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4500083]
Abortion terminates a living fetus. Describing it as "Pro-Choice" is intellectually dishonest, as the thing being terminated in an abortion is not a "choice", it's a Fetus.

Intellectual Honesty would "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion". Because the issue is Abortion, not choice.[/QUOTE]

Not really, no. Being in favor of abortion being legal and left to individual choice is not the same thing as being in favor of abortions - in the same sense that being in favor of, say, people being allowed to choose to practice Hinduism in American society is not the same thing as "being in favor of Hinduism."

The questions "what should people do" and "what should the law permit" in a pluralistic society are not coextensive

Warfish · 06-25-2012, 01:09 PM

[QUOTE=FF2®;4500086]This is MARKETING, not truth.[/QUOTE]

So intellectual dishonesty is acceptable then. Because everyone does it.

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4500090]Existing law doesn't work. Lawmakers or candidates who support enforcement of existing law are full of **** and deserve to be demonized.[/QUOTE]

So lawlessness is the answer to bad Law, not reform.

[QUOTE=doggin94it;4500099]Not really, no. Being in favor of abortion being legal and left to individual choice is not the same thing as being in favor of abortions[/quote]

I find that to be an intellectually dishonest position as well.

Being for Abortion being legal directly and unquestionably leads to abortions being peformed. It is a direct relationship.

What you're trying to argue is along the lines of "Well, if I'm for Death Camps for Illegals being legal, it doesn't mean I'm for what happens at death the death camps for illegals".

I'm sorry to use such an extreme example, but one cannot legitimately seperate support for the legallity of something or act, and the fact that that thing or act will directly happen because it is legal.

Again, if I said I was for prison terms for being Jewish, but not personally going to arrest any Jews, it does not free me from moral responsabillity for being for being for arresting Jews.

06-25-2012, 11:47 AM	#1
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	Intellectual Dishonesty on Illegal Immigration When people are against Illegal Immigration, and are labeled as being against "immigration". When the issue is Illegal Immigration, it's costs and effects, and many in the media only use the term Immigration. When clearly the right is working to stem/enforce against Illegal Immigration, and are widely desribed as "Nativists" and being against "Immigration", which implies ALL immigration, not just illegal. This is an issue of willful intellectual dishonesty and manipulation of uninformed public sentiment. There is no meaningful movement in the United States against Immigration or Immigration Law. There is ONLY a meaningful movement against ILLEGAL immigration, and enforcement of existing, on the books Law passed by Congress(es) and signed by the President(s) that made unlawful entrance intot he U.S. unlawful. How can we expect to have any meaningful debate on the issue, when the issue at hand is so obviously and willfully misrepresented?

06-25-2012, 11:52 AM	#2
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,117	Add it to the list of bogeymen created for just about every issue that exists: Abortion National Healthcare Tax Policy Campaign Finance Reform Defense Welfare Programs Social Security Civil Rights Education To be honest, I can't think of an issue where this kind of crap doesn't exist from one side, the other, or both. Increased polarization is a direct result of an increasingly uninformed public that continues to gobble this simplestic garbage up.

06-25-2012, 11:52 AM	#3
FF2® Believes Sloppy Guy was involved JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 46,130	I am thinking because you very rarely see someone who is against Illegal Immigrations discuss it by offering realistic solution to the problem. "Ship them all back because its the law" is naive.

06-25-2012, 12:04 PM	#4
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=FF2®;4500009]I am thinking because you very rarely see someone who is against Illegal Immigrations discuss it by offering realistic solution to the problem. "Ship them all back because its the law" is naive.[/QUOTE] So is "Stop Global Warming Now", "Healthcare for All Now", "End Poverty Now", "End Wealth Inequallity Now" and "No More Foreign Wars", yet thats never stopped some folks from being very supportive of those ideas, including some on this very forum. Even being for 100% enforcement of Immigration Law does not make one against Immigration. It makes one against ILLEGAL Immigration and against non-enforcement of existing Law, there is no basis for extended that position to being a "nativist" or being against all immigrants of all kinds. You relaize that your position boils down to "the Law is bad, ignore it". And you describe us as naive? Do you not see the problems a view like "Laws i bad, ignore it if you feel like it" can cause? if not now, then later on some other issue of import?

06-25-2012, 12:05 PM	#5
DeanPatsFan Lib Free Or Die..... All Pro Annoying Chowd Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,123	[QUOTE=FF2®;4500009]I am thinking because you very rarely see someone who is against Illegal Immigrations discuss it by offering realistic solution to the problem. "Ship them all back because its the law" is naive.[/QUOTE] Heavy fines and jail sentences for those who employ them should do well to curb the problem... They'll go back on their own....

06-25-2012, 12:08 PM	#6
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,913	The law needs to meet our needs and be effective in order to have broad support. Crappy law doesn’t deserve broad support and that’s the reason this obvious question doesn’t have an obvious answer. It's willfully dishonest to think people should blindly support crappy law or policy in a democracy.

06-25-2012, 12:13 PM	#7
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4500030]It's willfully dishonest to think people should blindly support crappy law or policy in a democracy.[/QUOTE] No, it's dishonest to outright ignore the existing Law just because it's "bad" to some minority of the populace, instead of following the legislative process to change it. I am ALL FOR chainging immigration Law if change needs to be made for OUR (the Citizens) benefit, and/or to make teh system more workable and better for us as a Nation. I am not for "reform" by a precedence of ignoring the Law, not enforcing teh Law, and pandering via this lawlessness to a racial group to try and win votes. Want change, legislate change. Change via lawlessness is not the kind of change we should be looking for, on this or any other issue. None of whcih touches on the issue here, that describing it as being "Immigration" instead of "ILLEGAL Immigration" is patently dishonest and willfully changes the entire crux of the debate at the very start.

06-25-2012, 12:30 PM	#8
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,395	[QUOTE=Warfish;4500036]No, it's dishonest to outright ignore the existing Law just because it's "bad" to some minority of the populace, instead of following the legislative process to change it. I am ALL FOR chainging immigration Law if change needs to be made for OUR (the Citizens) benefit, and/or to make teh system more workable and better for us as a Nation. I am not for "reform" by a precedence of ignoring the Law, not enforcing teh Law, and pandering via this lawlessness to a racial group to try and win votes. Want change, legislate change. Change via lawlessness is not the kind of change we should be looking for, on this or any other issue. None of whcih touches on the issue here, that describing it as being "Immigration" instead of "ILLEGAL Immigration" is patently dishonest and willfully changes the entire crux of the debate at the very start.[/QUOTE] Agreed 100%

06-25-2012, 12:34 PM	#9
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,913	[QUOTE=Warfish;4500036]No, it's dishonest to outright ignore the existing Law just because it's "bad" to some minority of the populace, instead of following the legislative process to change it. I am ALL FOR chainging immigration Law if change needs to be made for OUR (the Citizens) benefit, and/or to make teh system more workable and better for us as a Nation. I am not for "reform" by a precedence of ignoring the Law, not enforcing teh Law, and pandering via this lawlessness to a racial group to try and win votes. Want change, legislate change. Change via lawlessness is not the kind of change we should be looking for, on this or any other issue. None of whcih touches on the issue here, that describing it as being "Immigration" instead of "ILLEGAL Immigration" is patently dishonest and willfully changes the entire crux of the debate at the very start.[/QUOTE] Clearly part of our immigration policy is to allow illegals in when it suits us. That's been the polcy for decades under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The fact that we now have a real political constituency in our midst as a result of our policy will ultimately change policy into law.

06-25-2012, 12:39 PM	#10
FF2® Believes Sloppy Guy was involved JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 46,130	[QUOTE=Warfish;4500025]So is "Stop Global Warming Now", "Healthcare for All Now", "End Poverty Now", "End Wealth Inequallity Now" and "No More Foreign Wars", yet thats never stopped some folks from being very supportive of those ideas, including some on this very forum. Even being for 100% enforcement of Immigration Law does not make one against Immigration. It makes one against ILLEGAL Immigration and against non-enforcement of existing Law, there is no basis for extended that position to being a "nativist" or being against all immigrants of all kinds. You relaize that your position boils down to "the Law is bad, ignore it". And you describe us as naive? Do you not see the problems a view like "Laws i bad, ignore it if you feel like it" can cause? if not now, then later on some other issue of import?[/QUOTE] I realize you aren't not anti immigration. I am not debating the actual law here. I am merely trying to answer your question as why you may be perceived that way. What ever side you are against will always paint you in the extreme to lessen your integrity. On any issue. Hey, people for abortion rights are "baby-killers." AMIRITE? If you want birth control you must be a "slut." You're voting Obama? You're a socialist.

06-25-2012, 12:39 PM	#11
Axil Rookie Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 779	[QUOTE=FF2®;4500009]I am thinking because you very rarely see someone who is against Illegal Immigrations discuss it by offering realistic solution to the problem. "Ship them all back because its the law" is naive.[/QUOTE] If people against Illegal Immigrations are rarely able to support thier position with rational options, why is it necessary to further discredit them by misrepresenting their views?

06-25-2012, 12:41 PM	#12
FF2® Believes Sloppy Guy was involved JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 46,130	[QUOTE=Axil;4500065]If people against Illegal Immigrations are rarely able to support thier position with rational options, why is it necessary to further discredit them by misrepresenting their views?[/QUOTE] See my post above. It's about framing the argument to match your views.

06-25-2012, 12:44 PM	#13
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4500060]Clearly part of our immigration policy is to allow illegals in when it suits us.[/quote] Policy is not Law. Thats the problem. And again, it does not touch on the fact we're discussing, that those for enforcement of Law are being (wrongfully) described as "Anti-Immigration". I'm not interested in rationalization for WHY we are ignoring existing Law here, we're debating that in at least 4 other threads right now. The issue here is one of intellectual dishonesty, i.e. demonization of a group by both one side of the political aisle, and by the vast majority of our media.

06-25-2012, 12:48 PM	#14
FF2® Believes Sloppy Guy was involved JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 46,130	[QUOTE=Warfish;4500073]Policy is not Law. Thats the problem. And again, it does not touch on the fact we're discussing, that those for enforcement of Law are being (wrongfully) described as "Anti-Immigration". I'm not interested in rationalization for WHY we are ignoring existing Law here, we're debating that in at least 4 other threads right now. The issue here is one of intellectual dishonesty, i.e. demonization of a group by both one side of the political aisle, and by the vast majority of our media.[/QUOTE] Every group is demonized by an opposing group. Welcome to politics, 2012.

06-25-2012, 12:49 PM	#15
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=FF2®;4500063]I realize you aren't not anti immigration.[/quote] As a legal immigrant, any such claim would be quite funny. [QUOTE]What ever side you are against will always paint you in the extreme to lessen your integrity. On any issue.[/QUOTE] Yes, but lets look at your example, and see if they hold up vs. describing people as "Anti-Immigration". [quote]Hey, people for abortion rights are "baby-killers." AMIRITE?[/quote] Abortion terminates a living fetus. Describing it as "Pro-Choice" is intellectually dishonest, as the thing being terminated in an abortion is not a "choice", it's a Fetus. Intellectual Honesty would "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion". Because the issue is Abortion, not choice. [QUOTE]If you want birth control you must be a "slut."[/QUOTE] No. If you want Birth Control (on your dime), it's a 100% non-issue. if you want Birth-Control paid for by the Taxpayer, then the Taxpayer is going to question why you think you deserve it for free on our dime. In either case, only a tiny fraction of one side uses terminology like "slut". And certainly not the whole of one side, and certainly not the majority of the media as with "Anti-Immigration". [quote]You're voting Obama? You're a socialist.[/QUOTE] A debate for another thread. But yes, being for Obama is MORE Pro-Socialist Policy than being Pro-Romney. As our good friend Safety says, it's a matter of degree of Socialism, as unquestionably we already have Socialism in America as is.

06-25-2012, 12:53 PM	#16
FF2® Believes Sloppy Guy was involved JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 46,130	[QUOTE=Warfish;4500083]As a legal immigrant, any such claim would be quite funny. Yes, but lets look at your example, and see if they hold up vs. describing people as "Anti-Immigration". Abortion terminates a living fetus. Describing it as "Pro-Choice" is intellectually dishonest, as the thing being terminated in an abortion is not a "choice", it's a Fetus. Intellectual Honesty would "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion". Because the issue is Abortion, not choice. No. If you want Birth Control (on your dime), it's a 100% non-issue. if you want Birth-Control paid for by the Taxpayer, then the Taxpayer is going to question why you think you deserve it for free on our dime. In either case, only a tiny fraction of one side uses terminology like "slut". And certainly not the whole of one side, and certainly not the majority of the media as with "Anti-Immigration". A debate for another thread. But yes, being for Obama is MORE Pro-Socialist Policy than being Pro-Romney. As our good friend Safety says, it's a matter of degree of Socialism, as unquestionably we already have Socialism in America as is.[/QUOTE] You're totally missing the point, its not whether any of those things are TRUE...the ANTI side to any group will paint you with any negative image which will hurt your cause the most. This is MARKETING, not truth.

06-25-2012, 12:56 PM	#17
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,913	[QUOTE=Warfish;4500073]Policy is not Law. Thats the problem. And again, it does not touch on the fact we're discussing, that those for enforcement of Law are being (wrongfully) described as "Anti-Immigration". I'm not interested in rationalization for WHY we are ignoring existing Law here, we're debating that in at least 4 other threads right now. The issue here is one of intellectual dishonesty, i.e. demonization of a group by both one side of the political aisle, and by the vast majority of our media.[/QUOTE] Existing law doesn't work. Lawmakers or candidates who support enforcement of existing law are full of **** and deserve to be demonized.

06-25-2012, 12:59 PM	#18
Axil Rookie Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 779	[QUOTE=FF2®;4500068]See my post above. It's about framing the argument to match your views.[/QUOTE] Right... and that's politically useful in many cases. It's also intellectually dishonest, which is what i thought they topic was.

06-25-2012, 01:00 PM	#19
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,395	[QUOTE=Warfish;4500083] Abortion terminates a living fetus. Describing it as "Pro-Choice" is intellectually dishonest, as the thing being terminated in an abortion is not a "choice", it's a Fetus. Intellectual Honesty would "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion". Because the issue is Abortion, not choice.[/QUOTE] Not really, no. Being in favor of abortion being legal and left to individual choice is not the same thing as being in favor of abortions - in the same sense that being in favor of, say, people being allowed to choose to practice Hinduism in American society is not the same thing as "being in favor of Hinduism." The questions "what should people do" and "what should the law permit" in a pluralistic society are not coextensive

06-25-2012, 01:09 PM	#20
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=FF2®;4500086]This is MARKETING, not truth.[/QUOTE] So intellectual dishonesty is acceptable then. Because everyone does it. [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4500090]Existing law doesn't work. Lawmakers or candidates who support enforcement of existing law are full of **** and deserve to be demonized.[/QUOTE] So lawlessness is the answer to bad Law, not reform. [QUOTE=doggin94it;4500099]Not really, no. Being in favor of abortion being legal and left to individual choice is not the same thing as being in favor of abortions[/quote] I find that to be an intellectually dishonest position as well. Being for Abortion being legal directly and unquestionably leads to abortions being peformed. It is a direct relationship. What you're trying to argue is along the lines of "Well, if I'm for Death Camps for Illegals being legal, it doesn't mean I'm for what happens at death the death camps for illegals". I'm sorry to use such an extreme example, but one cannot legitimately seperate support for the legallity of something or act, and the fact that that thing or act will directly happen because it is legal. Again, if I said I was for prison terms for being Jewish, but not personally going to arrest any Jews, it does not free me from moral responsabillity for being for being for arresting Jews.