Jimmy Kimmel Introduces DACA Opponents to Dreamers - General

Good work everybody who dogpiled on skatehawk. You showed him just how intolerant the 'tolerant' are of other perspectives and probably pushed someone with a reasonable pro-legal immigration viewpoint further towards the fucking nativist-right. :ok:

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53100174]My morals are based on facts and logic. It’s a fact that dreamers did not receive the right of citizenship upon birth.[/QUOTE] just like the founding fathers wait

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53101373]Good work everybody who dogpiled on skatehawk. You showed him just how intolerant the 'tolerant' are of other perspectives and probably pushed someone with a reasonable pro-legal immigration viewpoint further towards the fucking nativist-right. :ok:[/QUOTE] Yes, how dare someone who basically didn't present any valid counterpoint besides "But-but-but dem's the rules!" to back his stance get shat on.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53101373]Good work everybody who dogpiled on skatehawk. You showed him just how intolerant the 'tolerant' are of other perspectives and probably pushed someone with a reasonable pro-legal immigration viewpoint further towards the fucking nativist-right. :ok:[/QUOTE] Oh shit how could I forget that all we have to do to convince people of our positions is to treat them like literal children and never ever hurt their feelings

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53101373]Good work everybody who dogpiled on skatehawk. You showed him just how intolerant the 'tolerant' are of other perspectives and probably pushed someone with a reasonable pro-legal immigration viewpoint further towards the fucking nativist-right. :ok:[/QUOTE] Because he totally actually participated in said conversation and didn't just stubbornly talk in circles. Kindly take your bullshit attitude elsewhere. Tolerating malicious stupidity is what got trump on the throne.

[QUOTE=cbb;53101423]Oh shit how could I forget that all we have to do to convince people of our positions is to treat them like literal children and never ever hurt their feelings[/QUOTE] What, you hope to convince them by getting them all defensive and entrenched? Let me know how that works out for you. You don't convince someone that their view is flawed without understanding it first and if you understood it you wouldn't attack them over it, precisely for the reason that you understand why they hold it. [QUOTE=snookypookums;53101384]Yes, how dare someone who basically didn't present any valid counterpoint besides "But-but-but dem's the rules!" to back his stance get shat on.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bomimo;53101437]Because he totally actually participated in said conversation and didn't just stubbornly talk in circles.[/QUOTE] It's hard to have a proper debate with people who attack you as a group and have no desire to understand why you feel the way you do. [QUOTE=Bomimo;53101437]Kindly take your bullshit attitude elsewhere.[/QUOTE] This is an example of a good attitude, is it? [QUOTE=Bomimo;53101437]Tolerating malicious stupidity is what got trump on the throne.[/QUOTE] I could not agree more, but we probably disagree on the source of that stupidity.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53101475]It's hard to have a proper debate with people who attack you as a group and have no desire to understand why you feel the way you do.[/QUOTE] To this I say (and this is hilarious, given the context of the thread this is in) - [B]TOUGH. SHIT.[/B] As harsh as this is, if you're willing to actually have a debate on something and you [I]know[/I] you have a minority opinion, you either do one of two things: a) Put up, i.e. Present an actual, non-cyclical argument that proves the merit of your points beyond repeating the same premise and core aspect of your point ad nauseam. Shit, nobody's actually stopping him from fighting his side at all. No mod has banned him and despite all the shit that is being flung on him, he still is allowed to make his point. He hasn't, because there isn't one to make that doesn't open up a can of worms about the other questionable stances he has. b) Shut up, i.e. don't even attempt to air out your idea in the form of a hypothetical "devil's advocate" bullshit that people use as a cowardly way of detaching themselves from the views they hold while still trying to debate it. Just....don't say anything. Keep that shit to yourself, open your ears and actually listen to the fact that maybe, just maybe, [I]you could be wrong, after all.[/I] When he comes back with an actual argument to back his words that doesn't go round in circles, [I]then[/I] it's a proper debate. Otherwise it's one person who said something stupid on the internet and everyone called him out on it/ "virtue signalled the shit out of him" (depending on how you want to look at this). As for the actual argument being made - the law is an ass. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States"]There have been numerous landmark cases that have reached the Supreme Court resulting in changes being made to laws that have proved this.[/URL] The idea that laws are infallible to the point that they override ethical responsibilities to humans is a ridiculous stance to take.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;53101384]Yes, how dare someone who basically didn't present any valid counterpoint besides "But-but-but dem's the rules!" to back his stance get shat on.[/QUOTE] If thems the rules was a valid response we would still have slavery

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53101475]What, you hope to convince them by getting them all defensive and entrenched? Let me know how that works out for you. You don't convince someone that their view is flawed without understanding it first and if you understood it you wouldn't attack them over it, precisely for the reason that you understand why they hold it.[/QUOTE] I don't think you actually read the thread because the people that responded to him first got him to clarify his positions and then started mocking him only after it became clear the only defense he could muster was retreating to a legal argument and 'basing his morals on logic'. Nobody attacked him out of the gate. Stupid positions should be attacked if the person making them isn't willing to listen. I'm not going to waste my time debating someone that's doing the ideological equivalent of covering their ears and repeating themselves over and over again.

So much for the tolerant left :thinking::thinking::thinking:

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53101373]Good work everybody who dogpiled on skatehawk. You showed him just how intolerant the 'tolerant' are of other perspectives and probably pushed someone with a reasonable pro-legal immigration viewpoint further towards the fucking nativist-right. :ok:[/QUOTE] Speaking as someone who didn't reply I just gotta say I really hate this dogpiling shit. And by "dogpiling shit" I mean people accusing others of dogpiling for responding to arguments on a message board. What, should people just not respond after a certain amount of people have already responded? One of the benefits of a message board is that it lets multiple people make arguments simultaneously instead of having to wait for one another to speak.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;53101506]a) Put up, i.e. Present an actual, non-cyclical argument that proves the merit of your points beyond repeating the same premise and core aspect of your point ad nauseam.[/QUOTE] The quality of the argument was poor, I can't deny that, an appeal to law is not a brilliant tactic. [QUOTE=snookypookums;53101506]Shit, nobody's actually stopping him from fighting his side at all. No mod has banned him and despite all the shit that is being flung on him, he still is allowed to make his point. He hasn't, because there isn't one to make that doesn't open up a can of worms about the other questionable stances he has.[/QUOTE] I'd like to know how you marry your view that he is "allowed" to make his point honestly, with your view that accepts he couldn't mention a possible hypothetical dimension of his argument should it 'open up a can of worms'. We live in a time and place where if he said something along the lines of not wanting to be demographically replaced in his own country (which I assume to be a possible motivation for many people who oppose mass or illegal immigration) whilst still appreciating and wanting immigration, he would be hung, drawn and quartered by frothing baizuos out for "nazi" blood. We're free to speak our minds only to a certain extent, and that is pushing people away from liberal values towards the right and that has me worried. I'm just trying to foster an understanding attitude between parties, as my personal views overlap both camps and I don't fit in with either and receive flak from both. [QUOTE=snookypookums;53101506] b) Shut up, i.e. don't even attempt to air out your idea in the form of a hypothetical "devil's advocate" bullshit that people use as a cowardly way of detaching themselves from the views they hold while still trying to debate it. Just....don't say anything. Keep that shit to yourself, open your ears and actually listen to the fact that maybe, just maybe, [I]you could be wrong, after all.[/I][/QUOTE] That's fine if you like the status quo, I can respect that. I remember how shocked everybody was at the Brexit and US election results. So many people forced to "shut up" voicing their concerns alone in the voting booth. I don't think it will end well though. [QUOTE=snookypookums;53101506] When he comes back with an actual argument to back his words that doesn't go round in circles, [I]then[/I] it's a proper debate. Otherwise it's one person who said something stupid on the internet and everyone called him out on it/ "virtue signalled the shit out of him" (depending on how you want to look at this).[/QUOTE] He needs a proper argument, certainly, but should he come back with one and the dogpile with it, I still wouldn't think it a fair and proper debate. It would be one person makes a salient argument and everyone collectively jumps on them for it. [QUOTE=snookypookums;53101506] As for the actual argument being made - the law is an ass. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States"]There have been numerous landmark cases that have reached the Supreme Court resulting in changes being made to laws that have proved this.[/URL] The idea that laws are infallible to the point that they override ethical responsibilities to humans is a ridiculous stance to take.[/QUOTE] Agreed. It was a poor argument in and of itself, I wonder if it did have an unaired 'can of worms' element. Unfortunately I find when people get defensive and start repeating their points, it is because they feel they are not being understood and they do not leave with a new perspective as a result. It's a complete fucking waste of time for both parties. Only through the left and the right understanding each other will we reach a position of mutual agreement or at least respect, if we don't reach that point, I feel this shitshow will continue down the path it's going. [editline]2nd February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;53101624]And by "dogpiling shit" I mean people accusing others of dogpiling for responding to arguments on a message board. What, should people just not respond after a certain amount of people have already responded? One of the benefits of a message board is that it lets multiple people make arguments simultaneously instead of having to wait for one another to speak.[/QUOTE] Nice, you got me at first. I thought someone agreed with me. What do you consider to be a dogpile?

"I think you can agree this is a caring country" "no, i think its become a cruel one." holy hitting the nail on the head batman. this is what people are talking about when they say america exceptionalism is dead, we don't do the thing that is difficult and runs counter to the politically expedient path anymore, we do what is best for the next election, for our donors, and what appeals to our base tribal instincts, but america was exceptional because we rose above that at one time, now not anymore.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53101373]Good work everybody who dogpiled on skatehawk. You showed him just how intolerant the 'tolerant' are of other perspectives and probably pushed someone with a reasonable pro-legal immigration viewpoint further towards the fucking nativist-right. :ok:[/QUOTE] "If liberals would have stopped yelling at me I wouldn't have become a nazi!" - The Alt Right. No sympathy for any of that "polarization" bullshit.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53101745] [B]PLEASE READ:[/B] I think you all are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. My responses have been a bit inconsistent. I also can't reply to everyone in detail as there are many of you and my time is limited. My stance on the DACA situation is that there are many good DACA recipients who despite came here illegally are good people who are contributing members of society. They grew up with American values and they are just as good as any other American citizen. The problem lies that there are DACA recipients who are not contributing members of society. You can't make the argument we should do the same to natural born Americans because they were given the right as a citizen - regardless of the moral or philosophical reasons that we don't own this country/land.[/QUOTE] You can absolutely make the argument that deadbeat citizens should be deported just the same as deadbeat DACA recipients. The arguments may not hold any actionable legal authority, but the purpose of those arguments isn't to permit the deportation of deadbeat citizens. The purpose of those arguments is to get you to examine the [I]moral reasoning[/I] of the differentiation between the average citizen and a DACA recipient. [QUOTE]Unlike the DACA recipients who came here illegally (even if they had no choice in the matter, it is still illegal).[/QUOTE] Here it looks like you're still using the law as a good measure of what is moral or ethical. [QUOTE]I know when I said my moral are based on "facts and logic" it makes me sound like a cringy "internet intellectual" - that is not what I am trying to say.[/QUOTE] The only reason this shit looks silly is because you're not [I]actually stating your reasoning[/I]. Just saying "facts and logic" without showing how the bits of your argument are connected makes that statement meaningless. You might as well state that your morals are based on midi-chlorians. [QUOTE]I am saying that the law is enforced even if it is immoral. That does not mean you should not follow the law, it means that you should push for proper legislation. Your argument is based on heavy ethical viewpoints and are basically saying don't follow the laws you find immoral.[/QUOTE] Or, here's a thought, maybe people are saying the laws ought to be changed? Why do we have to put people in a state of sub-citizenship if they're contributing as much or more than the average citizen? If the current situation is unjust, why shouldn't we push for justice? [QUOTE]Both parties have to come to a compromise to have DACA renewed. If it is not renewed it means that the DACA recipients now have no legal standing to be in this country. The government could deport them all if they wanted. Just like you, I agree we should not do that but it is not legally wrong for them to do so. The government does not care about the feelings of the DACA recipients if they decide to deport them, they care about the law.[/QUOTE] If the law is immoral or unethical the law should be changed. How much are you willing to compromise on issues related to justice? [QUOTE]I would also appreciate you at least respecting me as a person, you don't have to agree with my stance and I am trying to respect you a person while I have been hurled multiple personal insults that have no relevance to the debate. I know I am just some dumb conservative to you that is a big racist bigot but please try to respect me.[/QUOTE] People aren't treating you dumb because you're a conservative (generally). They're treating you dumb because your arguments have been stupid. It doesn't help that you're mixing your homophones and spelling things wrong as well. [QUOTE]I just want to make a compromise that allows good people to stay while the bad people are out. 100% open borders would be a great idea if the world was perfect but, unfonitaly that is not the case and we are letting people in that are not good people. I am sorry if I am unable to respond to everyone in detail, I am not trying to purposely avoid your questions.[/QUOTE] I don't want bad people in our communities either, but I also haven't seen good criteria put up for discerning the good from the bad. If a DACA recipient has committed violence that to me is a good reason to exclude them from the country. I don't think being poor is a good reason. I don't think a speeding ticket is a good reason. I also don't think having them sit for another 10 years as quasi-citizens under something like DACA before qualifying for application for citizenship is right. The current proposal by Trump therefore does not seem like a good compromise to me.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;53102404]"If liberals would have stopped yelling at me I wouldn't have become a nazi!" - The Alt Right. No sympathy for any of that "polarization" bullshit. [/QUOTE] I think I understand why you would dislike what I'm saying, though I also think you misunderstand; I'm not trying to defend the alt-right exclusively and would personally consider myself a liberal. It's clearly too radical a suggestion for you that respect and understanding of the opposing groups concerns, from all parties, could go a long way in depolarising the political climate. I wonder if you could appreciate why I feel the way I do if I reframed my perspective: Would you accept that a lack of sympathy and understanding from the right, and the resulting feelings of alienation, could help push a decent Muslim person towards radical Islam?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53101745]Your argument is based on heavy ethical viewpoints and are basically saying don't follow the laws you find immoral.[/QUOTE] I more or less agree with this statement but that's not what we're arguing. First, DACA [I]was[/I] the law until Trump repealed it. Any legal argument you make is going to be in [I]our[/I] favor because of that. We can literally argue that legally DACA should be reinstated and that it is morally righteous to uphold. Second, you should absolutely not follow any laws you find immoral. You agree with this even if you don't realize it because you are not a robot. People torrent stuff all the time. Weed wasn't legal until a couple week ago. I wasn't allowed to get married three years ago. Black people were second class citizens sixty years ago. One hundred and fifty years ago they were less than human. The only laws worth anything are laws that are morally righteous. [QUOTE=th0rianite;53103075]Would you accept that a lack of sympathy and understanding from the right, and the resulting feelings of alienation, could help push a decent Muslim person towards radical Islam?[/QUOTE] What are you even talking about? Do you think conservatives being racist and Muslims in America feeling alienated by that racism is what's causing strife in the Middle East?

[QUOTE=cbb;53103176]What are you even talking about? Do you think conservatives being racist and Muslims in America feeling alienated by that racism is what's causing strife in the Middle East?[/QUOTE] I'm talking about how a lack of sympathy and understanding for concerns we may not hold ourselves could be pushing people towards the extremes. What's with the Americentrism? I didn't mention America. No, I don't think that is what is causing strife in the middle east, that would be ad absurdum. Do you think Islamic fundamentalism only exists in the middle east or something? Let me again reiterate what I'm trying to say, that you might understand my argument better; I think persecution is radicalising people.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53104016]Let me again reiterate what I'm trying to say, that you might understand my argument better; I think persecution is radicalising people.[/QUOTE] How would you like us to respond to the destruction of innocent people's lives? Shall we all take special care not to hurt the feelings of the opposition while they go about their business [I]actually[/I] persecuting people? Perhaps to better illustrate your point, you can point to me when trying to understand the motives of the cruel has ever been of benefit to the civil rights of minorities. African Americans didn't try to understand racists when they fought for their rights. Women didn't try to understand misogynists when they fought for their rights. The gay community didn't try to understand homophobes when they fought for their rights. Should trans people try to understand the motives of the transphobic in the pursuit of their rights? Should we all use delicate language when confronting people that deny others their right to exist? Tell me what you think a proper response to tyranny is.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104086]You are letting bad people come and stay in the country. A DACA recipient was just arrested for human trafficking a few days ago. You realize by the time they commited the crime it is nearly useless to deport them, the damage is already done. We need a preventive measures. Many countries have a merit based immigration system and it works very well. Why does America have the obligation to be a refugee camp for the world? We have a legal way of coming in and it is unfair to those who are waiting and someone who broke the law gets to say. That really speaks about the values we have...[/QUOTE] Can you explain the distinction between someone that was born in the US committing a crime and someone that wasn't born in the US committing a crime? I assume you don't have a problem with legal immigrants committing crimes. And since DACA recipients were granted a legal right to stay in the US, you shouldn't have any issue with them committing crimes either.

[QUOTE=T553412;53098095]Some parts of the american population have a bizarre obssesion, bordering on flat out worship, of anything related to the Founding Fathers[/QUOTE] I would say its not a worship of the Founding Fathers, many of whom would be completely freaked out about how little these worshippers understand what the framers were intending for the Constitution. Many of these fundementalists barely understand our government currently let alone the historical contexts.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104126]Yes, technically DACA recipients are here legally under that act. However, I am talking about what action should be done if it is not renewed. The Trump administration didn't necessarily repeal DACA, it has to be renewed every 2 years. Trump is just not going to renew it without the wall money. They have taken some measures like prevented any new registrations but they didn't repeal a permanent law, it was an act so we can eventually have a permanent solution in the future.[/QUOTE] Do you think it's right for this administration to use DACA as leverage for a wall? [QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104126]Slavery and illegal immigration are two completely different things and are not even morally comparable. Slavery had humans being treated like property and animals. DACA recipients came in illegally, they have not earned the right to citizenship because they live in bad conditions. We have ways of letting people in the legal way. America is not obligated to be the world's refugee camp.[/QUOTE] DACA recipients were [I]forced[/I] to come here as children. They didn't have any say in the matter. DACA exists to protect them from being deported to a country that is literally foreign to them. They haven't earned the right to temporary citizenship because of bad conditions, they've earned it because they have nowhere else to go and to deport them would be cruel. [QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104126]They are both criminals and should be punished. The immigrant however did not come here in a legal fashion and therefore do not have the rights to justice as an American. I agree they are legal as the act permits, but I am speaking on the terms DACA is not renewed. I am also arguing it should not be renewed for how it currently stands. I don't think we should deport DACA recipients right now as they are here legally.[/QUOTE] Why shouldn't DACA be renewed? DACA recipients are people that have no choice but to live in America and they are so small in number that it's not possible for them to have an adverse effect on the economy.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53103075]I think I understand why you would dislike what I'm saying, though I also think you misunderstand; I'm not trying to defend the alt-right exclusively and would personally consider myself a liberal. It's clearly too radical a suggestion for you that respect and understanding of the opposing groups concerns, from all parties, could go a long way in depolarising the political climate. I wonder if you could appreciate why I feel the way I do if I reframed my perspective: Would you accept that a lack of sympathy and understanding from the right, and the resulting feelings of alienation, could help push a decent Muslim person towards radical Islam?[/QUOTE] This is a middle ground fallacy, at its birth, the Alt Right was definitly not born of racism but rather a frustration of several people getting sold up the creek by faux-leftists. However, that started to change. Today's Alt Right is inline with nazism and fascism, of which you cannot have a discussion of middle grounds because what is the middle ground of genocide? [editline]2nd February 2018[/editline] Let me be clear, I can understand and even empathize with Conservative viewpoints. The Alt Right is not conservative, the republican party circa 1995 was conservative. The Alt Right is an even larger push rightward which is where fascism lies.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104155]Yes, I realize they were forced to come here but that does not make it right. This situation is stuck between a rock and a hard place. For example would you let me stay in your house if I was homeless and I just lay around, eat your food, don't clean and be overall disrespectful? Just because I was homeless does not make me a good person.[/QUOTE] If my house was as big as the entire United States then yes, I would definitely let you stay in it. Do you think it's fair for you to characterize DACA recipients as lazy and disrespectful?

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104172]This logic makes no sense. It does not matter if you live in a studio apartment or a mansion, the point is it does not feel good to have someone that has no right to be in your house and they are being ungrateful for it. I feel like you don't actually believe this.[/QUOTE] DACA recipients have every right to be in the US under DACA. I don't consider them illegal immigrants. I'm personally for well implemented open borders so I do actually believe this. [QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104172]I'm not saying all DACA recipients are lazy and disrespectful. I want to get rid of those who are.[/QUOTE] I don't understand this distinction. Once someone has been granted citizenship, even temporarily, why does it matter how lazy or disrespectful they are? There are plenty of American born citizens that are lazy and disrespectful. I don't believe that where someone is born should dictate the rights that they receive if they've been accepted as a citizen.

When they came for the criminals and the unemployed, I did not speak up, for I was not a criminal or on welfare.

that was actually disturbing to watch...

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104190]For the thousandth time, I'm not talking about right this second. I'm talking about after March 5th and when there is a very high possibility of no renewal.[/QUOTE] This is a copout. I assume you don't want DACA to be renewed. Why? [QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104190]I also want to know how you implement a good open border system and examples of such because right now there is no country in the world that has fully open borders that include permanent immigration - not travel.[/QUOTE] I'm not a border or immigration specialist so I have no idea what a well implemented open border system would look like. I'm for it out of a combination of moral and economic reasons. I wouldn't be in favor of an open border system that wasn't implemented well.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104232]I can't believe you're asking why. This is what this whole debate has been about. I don't think you're even reading what I am saying. If this continues I am just going to stop.[/QUOTE] I really don't know why you wouldn't want it to get renewed. Because you feel like they're illegal immigrants? Because they commit crime? Because they don't pay taxes? Maybe I'm just stupid and I'm unable to discern your reason from what you've already said but if you state your reasons clearly in response to this post I'll know for certain what they are. [QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104232]You can't being saying you're for open borders when you have no idea of the repercussions it is causing. You realize this world is not perfect. Someone is going to get the short end of the stick somewhere. I understand you want to be nice and fair to everyone but it is the sad truth is that you can't.[/QUOTE] Yeah, of course someone is going to get the short end of the stick. Luckily the benefits of immigration far outweigh the negatives.

[QUOTE=skatehawk11;53104266]First, DACA was not meant to be a permanent solution. It was basically a delay so we could create proper legislation (will probably never happen due to polarization). Secondly, we are letting people stay in the country with no value using taxpayer money, resources and are criminals. I don't "feel" like they came here illegally. They really did come here illegally and more than likely DACA will not be renewed and they will living here illegally here as well. [B]TL;DR - Keep good DACA recipients in (families, workers, mothers, military members, etc.), send the bad ones out (Extended unemployment, welfare recipients, criminals, etc. ) as they do not have the right to be here in the first place and do not deserve the right to use [I]our [/I] resources.[/B][/QUOTE] Why would you want to repeal DACA if there isn't a permanent solution ready? DACA recipients have no choice but to be here. Why would you want them to stay here illegally when you could grant them temporary citizenship and let them benefit society as citizens? Repealing DACA doesn't do anything but make it harder for the 'good' DACA recipients to get work and increase the likelihood of them being deported. You can't simultaneously be in favor of repealing DACA and allowing the 'good' DACA recipients to stay.