Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:48 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:02 pm ...the deportation officer must provide a deportable non-citizen an opportunity to be heard in a full and fair hearing.

What's your evidence that this has not been done?

Everyone who was deported solely on the basis of the appearance of a tattoo.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:49 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:48 pm
What's your evidence that this has not been done?

Are you serious?

Absolutely. What's your evidence that this has not been done?

Anyone who was deported en masse.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:23 pm

Oh, look at this tree and ignore the forest!

Nah.

a clarity edit

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:34 pm Oh, look at this tree and ignore the forest!

Nah.

If it happens, it happens. The number of times it happens makes no difference.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:42 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:34 pm Oh, look at this tree and ignore the forest!

Nah.

If it happens, it happens. The number of times it happens makes no difference.

My response above was to Flash, not you, Robot Overlord.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:44 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:42 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:34 pm Oh, look at this tree and ignore the forest!

Nah.

If it happens, it happens. The number of times it happens makes no difference.

My response above was to flash, not you Robot Overlord.

May as well use the same answer. Except of course, there's no "forest" of presidents ignoring court rulings that don't go in their favour, that's a new thing, no other president has had the audacity.

And you definitely will be pissed off about it if the next president is a dem and does that. Suddenly you would pay all sorts of hypocritical attention then.

My original comment wasn't about presidents, but the whole shmear and everyone associated with it (by election or appointment)...

No one does that. No one has for a very long time. No one will again.

*

if the next president is a dem and does that. Suddenly you would pay all sorts of hypocritical attention then.

Nope. I had very little to say about the shenanigans of The House Plant or the Café au lait Whore, and I've said little -- compared to most here -- about RED MAN DEFIANT's or The Country Hick's.

It's all a very entertaining, and dangerous, production, but the actors aren't the ones workin' the pulleys and arrangin' the set during intermission.

Enjoy the show but remember: even the improvised parts are scripted (there might, though, be rewrites goin' on behind the curtain).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:52 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:13 pm What's the answer to my final question, there?

Imagine you've been picked up as an illegal migrant. You have a right to "due process." Okay. What's your excuse for being in the US, in a gang, selling drugs and prostitutes, killing children and soaking up the Biden benefits. How will you employ "due process" to your aid?

Let's hear the defense you would mount.

See, it's like if you come home, and there's somebody in your house. He's broken a window to get in. He's stealing your stuff, and he's assaulted your wife and children, and made himself comfortable in your easy chair, and is eating food out of your refrigerator. What's his reasonable defense for being there?

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not familiar with immigration law. I just know that everyone has a right to due process. If due process has been denied, then it's in violation of the Constitution. I don't know what that would look like in the particulars.

Well, the particulars are where any "violation" would take place. One would have to know those particulars in order to say there was any "violation."

You see, Gary...it's not enough to just hate the present administration. That won't justify an accusation against them if you don't have knowledge that they have done something specific that it is not their right to do, or have failed to do something that it was their duty to do.

Do you know that? Apparently not. So what is your exact quibble with the deportation policy regarding illegal aliens at the present moment?

Well, if immigrants are disappearing never to be heard from again, like that Venezuelan guy, then that's kind of disturbing, isn't it? I had thought the US ought to be above that kind of treatment of people.

As far as the administration goes, I've heard that they are causing havoc with government agencies that administer social welfare programs such as Social Security (among others). I don't think that's a good thing. As you say, Trump is also putting a lot of pressure on Canada. Why would you defend him and his policies? Do you want to see Trump bring Western Civilization down? I don't understand your problem with those of us who are critics of Turmp's administration. I mean, what did Biden do to earn so much ire from you? Trump is causing a lot more havoc than Biden, isn't he?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 7:32 pm
Show me the quote where I am doing that.

Oh, very easily.

No insinuations, show me the quote where I am using that case to say that Trump denies due process to illegals.

I did: it's every time you say that you are concerned about "due process." If you're concerned about "due process," it certainly means you're concerned about the process, not just the judgment in a particular case, even if you regard that as a misjudged case. You're concerned about the "process" being used, you say, and what is "due" to all.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 9:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:52 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:58 pm

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not familiar with immigration law. I just know that everyone has a right to due process. If due process has been denied, then it's in violation of the Constitution. I don't know what that would look like in the particulars.

Well, the particulars are where any "violation" would take place. One would have to know those particulars in order to say there was any "violation."

You see, Gary...it's not enough to just hate the present administration. That won't justify an accusation against them if you don't have knowledge that they have done something specific that it is not their right to do, or have failed to do something that it was their duty to do.

Do you know that? Apparently not. So what is your exact quibble with the deportation policy regarding illegal aliens at the present moment?

Well, if immigrants are disappearing never to be heard from again, like that Venezuelan guy, then that's kind of disturbing, isn't it?

That depends. If they're "disappearing" in order to avoid extradition, then all that's "concerning" is finding him so he can be deported. If they're "disappearing" because their own criminal gangs are disappearing them, then that's concerning -- we have to stop those gangs. Just what sort of "disturbing" is warranted depends on what's really happened, doesn't it?

I had thought the US ought to be above that kind of treatment of people.

What makes you think they did it?

As far as the administration goes, I've heard that they are causing havoc with government agencies that administer social welfare programs such as Social Security (among others).

Don't take that too seriously. It's exactly what the Left is bound to claim if they change anything at all. It doesn't mean that the people who've been fired weren't deadweight, or that the organization will not be able to fulfill its function.

As you say, Trump is also putting a lot of pressure on Canada. Why would you defend him and his policies?

I don't. I only approve of those things he does that are good. The bad things, I'm content to disapprove of.

This is yet another problem with the Left -- their all-or-nothing thinking. If you're seen as on their team, like Nancy Pelosi, for example, then you can be a completely corrupt old crone, and they'll not say a single thing about you. But you can be as moral and upright as a ramrod, and if you are seen by them as not sufficiently committed to Leftism, then they'll refuse to see anything good you do. And it's that kind of thinking that has made the Left so inept at talking to their opposition: it's hard to talk with people when you've convinced yourself that anybody who sees things differently is automatically the Devil.

Do you want to see Trump bring Western Civilization down?

I don't think they're doing anything of the kind. If anything, some of their reforms just might save the West...at least the American part of it. Do you really think Washington wasn't a swamp? Do you think that bureaucrats who had huge salaries and misused public funds are going to keep the welfare state going long term? Somebody needed to call a halt to it; and I have yet to see a bad effect of their cuts. But we can wait and find out, because America was in serious decline so far, and couldn't survive much more damage than the Clinton-Obama-Bidens had done.

I don't understand your problem with those of us who are critics of Turmp's administration.

I don't have any problem with them at all.; in some ways, maybe I'd partner with them. I'd just like to know what particular problem they are pointing to, and see if I agree with them or not. And it seem to me that cutting the bureaucracy is nothing but a good policy. It's certainly in the interests of the average American. We can maybe haggle over whether or not he's going far enough or doing enough cuts.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 11:09 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 11:01 pm This is the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.

I hate to tell you...one case does not signify whether or not the Federal Government has the power to deport. They do.

No one disputes that. It’s the way in which it’s being carried out.

What "way" is it wrong?

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:48 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:02 pm ...the deportation officer must provide a deportable non-citizen an opportunity to be heard in a full and fair hearing.

What's your evidence that this has not been done?

Everyone who was deported solely on the basis of the appearance of a tattoo.

What's your evidence that this is being done? It seems a very bizarre thing to allege, so you'll need to back it up, of course.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:49 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 5:50 pm

Are you serious?

Absolutely. What's your evidence that this has not been done?

Anyone who was deported en masse.

What do you mean "en masse"? A mass of genuine criminals being deported is unequivocally a good thing, don't you think? Are you trying to suggest they didn't check to see who they were deporting? The opposite looks to be true, as it seems they can give quite a detailed account of who they're deporting and why; so you'll have to justify that concern.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:04 am

Do you want to see Trump bring Western Civilization down?

I don't think they're doing anything of the kind. If anything, some of their reforms just might save the West...at least the American part of it. Do you really think Washington wasn't a swamp? Do you think that bureaucrats who had huge salaries and misused public funds are going to keep the welfare state going long term? Somebody needed to call a halt to it; and I have yet to see a bad effect of their cuts. But we can wait and find out, because America was in serious decline so far, and couldn't survive much more damage than the Clinton-Obama-Bidens had done.

What about George Bush Jr. Did he not orchestrate the single biggest blunder, even the biggest atrocity America has committed against others of late? Is that not important? Or is it only important what Democrats have done? At their worst, it seems to me that Democrats haven't been very assertive in accomplishing some things that need to be accomplished, such as pursuing sustainable energy as much as we need it or getting us out of wars we shouldn't be in. But it seems to me that the Bush administration has perpetrated the greatest evil by far, getting us into the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Is that not the case?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:52 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:04 am

Do you want to see Trump bring Western Civilization down?

I don't think they're doing anything of the kind. If anything, some of their reforms just might save the West...at least the American part of it. Do you really think Washington wasn't a swamp? Do you think that bureaucrats who had huge salaries and misused public funds are going to keep the welfare state going long term? Somebody needed to call a halt to it; and I have yet to see a bad effect of their cuts. But we can wait and find out, because America was in serious decline so far, and couldn't survive much more damage than the Clinton-Obama-Bidens had done.

What about George Bush Jr.

What about him? I don't care about him, and never did.

But you're making a fallacy called an "et tu quoque," in which the argument goes, "Sure, my guys are bad, but I know somebody on another side, and he was also bad."

But let's accept that GB Jr. was evil; how does that make the others any better?

Or is it only important what Democrats have done?

I'm going to say something you're going to be annoyed at, but don't: I like the people I'm talking about, but they have a fault. Most people do.

You're behaving in a very "American" way at the moment, Gary, if I can manage to say that without offense. Americans seem to think that everybody has to be either a Dem or a Republican, because every American has to be one or the other. But I don't live in your country, and don't care about your parties, and pick and choose policies, not parties.

Americans always think that everybody else has to think, and even should think, exactly according to the allegiances they feel. How else can we explain that all the Americans here seem to think I must be a "Trumpist" if I say that Trump's done anything I like? For some bizarre reason, they seem to think every country has some version of their Dems and Repubs, maybe because many Americans never think of other countries at all. Visitors to America are invariably stunned by the stupidity of the questions they get about their own places: "Do you have a queen? Does everybody there ride camels? Do you people have a 4th of July?" In fact, I've met Americans who never even think outside their own state, or even their own subregion: go to Kentucky or West Virginia's southern part, and you'll know exactly what I mean: Americans can be terribly, terribly provincial and self-absorbed. It's probably their worst trait -- and I say that as somebody who, in all honesty, likes Americans in most ways.

Don't be that. We non-Americans are free to like policies that we like, and not like the policies we don't like. We don't have to sign up to your parties.

pursuing sustainable energy

Oh, Gary, Gary, Gary...name one state that uses energy and is "sustainable." Their success record is absolutely zero. What you have, instead, is vast waste of resources and ravaging of the environment by "green" companies and "green" programs that actually hurt, not help the environment. Don't mistake a windmill, a solar panel, or a recycling bin for something that helps the environment. Besides, the big carbon polluters in the world are two: China and India. Compared to them, nothing anybody else does will even matter. So there are no serious discussions about sustainability to be had that don't begin with those two names.

getting us out of wars we shouldn't be in.

It was the Dems who pushed the NATO thing with Ukraine, and goaded Putin into invading; and the last thing the Dems want is for that war ever to end.

But it seems to me that the Bush administration has perpetrated the greatest evil by far, getting us into the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Like I say: I don't care about Bush: I'm not a fan. I don't have to be: I'm not in his country, never voted for him, and don't belong to any party he would even recognize. Bush was a bumbler; but it's not better than what the Dems have done to Ukraine, and Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan was, by any metric a complete disaster. So I'm not seeing that the et tu quoque fallacy here is working at all. Nor should it.