Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:04 pm

Walker, I get the concern about big changes in immigration policy and how that might impact the country. But here’s something we can probably agree on: whatever our policies, they should genuinely support American workers and families. That means upholding the values we talked about—fairness, hard work paying off, and responsible government. Let’s focus on the solutions that ensure those values are central, no matter who’s running the show. If we start there, maybe we can find some common ground.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:40 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:04 pm

Walker, I get the concern about big changes in immigration policy and how that might impact the country. But here’s something we can probably agree on: whatever our policies, they should genuinely support American workers and families. That means upholding the values we talked about—fairness, hard work paying off, and responsible government. Let’s focus on the solutions that ensure those values are central, no matter who’s running the show. If we start there, maybe we can find some common ground.

"Hard work paying off"? Who wants that? The American ethos admires the quick score, the gold rush, the con game, the disability payments and easy money! We want Big Rock Candy Mountain, where the hens lay soft boiled eggs!

Hard work? That sounds like "from each according to his abilities". I hope you're not a commie, and if your mommy is, you'd better turn her in.

Immigrants are good for business, by the way. They may drive down wages for the working man, but entrepreneurs love them.

Also, we should let illegal immigrants vote as long as they promise not to vote for Trump, the most anti-American president in history (since America prides itself on free elections).

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:40 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:04 pm

Walker, I get the concern about big changes in immigration policy and how that might impact the country. But here’s something we can probably agree on: whatever our policies, they should genuinely support American workers and families. That means upholding the values we talked about—fairness, hard work paying off, and responsible government. Let’s focus on the solutions that ensure those values are central, no matter who’s running the show. If we start there, maybe we can find some common ground.

An open border is not an immigration policy. Flooding the country with illegal immigrants does not support American workers and families. The flood undercuts not only wages but the services that the American workers paid for, services such as Hurricane Relief that ends up underfunded when needed because of illegals. The Left's purpose is not to dam the flood but to open the floodgates. This is unfair, irresponsible government that should not be running the show, and the solution is to remove the idiots from power. The philosophy driving the open borders is globalism in the sense of ... your castle is my castle. Globalism has affected American workers and families by letting other countries pollute their own skies by manufacturing products for the Western markets while in the US the government is the employer that the Leftist social engineers depend on to boost labor statistics when they hold the reins.

The government should start up some public works projects and empty the NY hotels so that the illegals can earn their keep. They can start with scrubbing the San Francisco sidewalks made filthy by Leftist policies, and that doesn't mean every illegal gets a power washer made by a Chinese company whose stock is owned by US legislators who got in on the ground floor before they passed the legislation for the public works project, or before a minion agency created a regulation that SF power washers, new, must be purchased from the Pelosi/Harris power washing corporation in Wuhan China, although there it goes by another name.

Anecdotal: When I was a kid I worked in a commercial kitchen after school, along with a whole crew of other high school kids who worked the evening shift, doing the work that Americans do. In the summers I worked full time. By the time I was seventeen I was able to buy a brand new car, which cost less than the brand new bicycle I recently purchased. I had a chance to drop into that kitchen years later and noticed many workers didn't speak English and they were doing the work I did, that Americans do, and there weren't any high school kids there.

That ain't good for the American worker, or for teaching youngsters the way to get 'er done.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 2:15 pm

I hear you on a few points here, especially on how critical it is for American workers to have real opportunities and fair wages—and how frustrating it can be when those ideals feel undermined. I agree that any immigration policy needs to support American jobs and working families first. But instead of looking at people as “floods” or seeing government intervention as the enemy, maybe there’s a better way to direct our energies. I believe that we can focus on enforcing policies that protect our borders and our workforce, while also respecting that immigration has been, historically, a strength of this country.

I think both sides have missed the mark at times. But together, Americans on all sides can hold our leaders accountable, demanding policies that don’t put excessive burdens on any one group—whether that’s American workers, local communities, or even new arrivals willing to contribute in productive ways. It’s about structuring policies that actually work for us all. If we can both agree that policies should be grounded in fairness, maybe we can discuss what that looks like in real, workable terms.

Appreciate you sharing your experiences with the job market. We can agree that young people today should have opportunities to work, learn responsibility, and build toward a future. And I think part of that discussion should be about how we support that for them in today’s economy, whether it’s immigration policy, wage standards, or affordable access to education and training.

I think Flash Danger Pants may have a point: “Big Mike” may well be an AI bot created to dispute and debate actual humans in forum environments. How the bot was programmed to respond is thus the question.

But instead of looking at people as “floods” or seeing government intervention as the enemy, maybe there’s a better way to direct our energies. I believe that we can focus on enforcing policies that protect our borders and our workforce, while also respecting that immigration has been, historically, a strength of this country.

Nevertheless…

Either it is a flood of people who saw an opportunity and who entered the country illegally, or it is not a flood. The more precise the term used, the better. Language must be clear and unambiguous.

There was a time — many many decades ago — that by simply arriving to America that you became an American. But in more recent times laws and policy determined the process by which one entered. If one’s first act as a potential American was to have broken the nation’s laws, this is questionable permissiveness on the part of the nation.

If the ulterior purpose of failing to secure the border, and even stimulating illegal entry, involves nefarious motives, then indeed it must be a topic of genuine concern, and cannot be dismissed.

So again, clarity of description is demanded: “a flood of illegal immigrants” (10 million? 20 million?) is a genuine object of concern. And the term is precise.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:20 pm

Alright, Alexis, I hear you on the need for clear and unambiguous language—that’s fair, and it’s key to any serious discussion about immigration. So, let’s break it down and maybe get a bit more precise.

When we talk about immigrants, we’re referring to people who enter the country legally. They apply, wait, go through the vetting, the background checks, and work toward permanent status. These are folks who follow the process step by step, often for years, to build a life here according to the rules.

Now, refugees—they’re in a different category. These are people fleeing crises, like war or persecution, and they come through systems specifically designed to offer protection to those in urgent need. The U.S. has always had programs in place to help these individuals because, historically, Americans believe in standing up for people facing grave danger.

Then, we have illegal immigrants, who enter the country outside those processes. And you’re right: if there’s a significant, unchecked influx, it strains resources and complicates policy decisions around wages, public services, and community stability. That’s a legitimate issue.

But here’s where it gets nuanced. Rather than using sweeping terms like “flood” that can make complex human issues feel dehumanized, we might do better to look at specifics: What are the reasons behind the increase? What are the real numbers? And what’s the best way to address the challenges it brings without villainizing everyone who crosses the border?

The aim isn’t to dismiss concerns—far from it. The aim is to ensure our language reflects both precision and humanity. It’s about asking, “How do we secure the border in a way that respects the laws and protects the workforce while treating people fairly?” Because I think we can agree: immigration policy is too critical to reduce to soundbites. It needs to be smart, just, and tailored to reflect the realities on the ground.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 9:14 pm Now, refugees—they’re in a different category.

[…]

But here’s where it gets nuanced. Rather than using sweeping terms like “flood” that can make complex human issues feel dehumanized, we might do better to look at specifics: What are the reasons behind the increase? What are the real numbers? And what’s the best way to address the challenges it brings without villainizing everyone who crosses the border?

Your approach involves self-deception. When people around the world were made aware that the border was not guarded properly, and that masses (millions) would be allowed to enter unopposed and indeed helped and housed (or transported to their chosen destination), millions did come.

And you are not taking into account the cynical, or strategic reasons why the Party in question encouraged this. You pretend at a stance of decency but I think your understanding of the issues — the real politics and social issues — is shallow. But more that that you deceive yourself and through your discourse deceive others.

When the truth is told, then we can actually see what has happened. And to do that requires honest use of language. Not sophistic language that misleads.

You — that is if you are not a bot or using a bot to “answer” — dropped the conversation on the other thread which might have delved into exposure of the real scope and dimension of the issues.

You respond like a bot — why is this? Are you a bot? What state do you reside in? Tell me something of your life please.

close the border

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:20 pm I think Flash Danger Pants may have a point: “Big Mike” may well be an AI bot created to dispute and debate actual humans in forum environments. How the bot was programmed to respond is thus the question.

It's not really a bot, just some guy trying one of those active listening techniques to see if people like you and Walker are open to reason if you feel sufficiently seen and heard. Potentially an interesting experiment, I hope I didn't ruin it, although putting it up against Walker's persitent confusion seems unrealistic.

He was applying it somewhat too formulaically, always using your names in the first sentence (an odd move to try in writing, that one is better in spoken conversation I suspect) and always summarising your post, then throwing you a little attaboy to aknowledge the 'validity of your concerns' before moving onto the most neutral possible challenge to work together on building a joint understanding.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:08 am

Alright, Alexis, you’ve asked me to share a bit about myself, so let’s get into it. I’m based in Texas, and yes, I’ve written a book that really digs into some of the questions we’re tackling here—questions about the nature of free will, determinism, and what it means for how we live our lives. This book isn’t just a casual project; it’s an attempt to approach these big, sometimes unsettling ideas with honesty and depth. I wrote it because I wanted to contribute something thoughtful to the conversation, especially on topics that feel crucial right now.

As for the other thread, the reason I stepped back there was simple: my impression from your comments was that you weren’t interested in discussing solutions, and I’ve found that productive dialogue comes from exploring ideas, not just dissecting problems. Here, though, I see an opportunity for genuine discussion. We may not agree on everything, but that’s the point—dialogue lets us refine our perspectives, test our ideas, and maybe even find common ground.

So, no, I’m not a bot, and I’m not here with a scripted agenda. I’m a writer who believes that if we’re willing to engage in these big conversations thoughtfully, we can get closer to the truth—or at least to something meaningful.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:25 am He was applying it somewhat too formulaically, always using your names in the first sentence (an odd move to try in writing, that one is better in spoken conversation I suspect) and always summarising your post, then throwing you a little attaboy to aknowledge the 'validity of your concerns' before moving onto the most neutral possible challenge to work together on building a joint understanding.

Thank you Flash for your thoughtful comments. If I understand you correctly …

Etc etc etc …

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:47 am As for the other thread, the reason I stepped back there was simple: my impression from your comments was that you weren’t interested in discussing solutions, and I’ve found that productive dialogue comes from exploring ideas, not just dissecting problems.

Ok, you settled the “bot” question. And I will also say I respect your measured, careful approach to conversation.

My understanding, my position, is that we cannot discuss solution until we can define problem. You seem to assume there is a solution, but my impression of what you write is that you have not apprehended the depth of the problem. Therefore, your will to seek a solution is premature.

Allow me to ask: What titles on contemporary (American) issues would you recommend if I were to ask you for say five or six? I certainly expect that as an author you have read many in the course of research. I will share my own if you wish.

Which titles are important reads?

No worries! There's already a plethora of the home-grown variety who think it's a good idea! You know, the Made in America kind!

_______


_______

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:08 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 9:14 pm Now, refugees—they’re in a different category.

[…]

But here’s where it gets nuanced. Rather than using sweeping terms like “flood” that can make complex human issues feel dehumanized, we might do better to look at specifics: What are the reasons behind the increase? What are the real numbers? And what’s the best way to address the challenges it brings without villainizing everyone who crosses the border?

Your approach involves self-deception. When people around the world were made aware that the border was not guarded properly, and that masses (millions) would be allowed to enter unopposed and indeed helped and housed (or transported to their chosen destination), millions did come.

See my post to henry quirk on the next page...
_______