Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Asterios wrote:
this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.

What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.

furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?

Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.

 whembly wrote:

Simply stated: Living document doesn't mean that "since the times change, so the text means something different".

Yeah, it does. I don't know how much you know about the English language, but it is a bit of a bear; especially when you get into specific interpretations.

 whembly wrote:

The fact that the Constitution can be changed via the amendment process is by definition a living document.

You're just being obstinate, now. When presented with divergent information you chose to retrench, not reconsider.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.

What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.

furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?

Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.

there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.

as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.

 jasper76 wrote:
@SickSix: One goal of the Bill of Rights was, indeed, to enumerate the rights of US citizens. Rights are an abstraction...they only exist because we define them for ourselves. If they are not codified in law, they are meaningless..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Preston John: since when were all rights equally important?

All rights are inherently equal. Your right to free speech isn't more important than your right to freedom of religion or freedom of assembly. They all come from the same place, they all have the same constitutional protection, one isn't given greater prominence than any other. They are all included in the first amendment, they're all treated the same. Other rights that are protected by other parts of the constitution are also equally important because there is nothing in the constiution that differentiates them in importance or categorizes them in tiers or whatever. Why do you think some of our constitutional rights are more important than others?

Asterios wrote:

this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up. furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?

Constructing a solid barrier patrolled by armed guards across the entirety of the border to Mexico out of hatred of Mexicans is not exactly the same sort of issue as what a person can do with their house and yard. Sure, they may be a jerk for putting up a stone wall around their yard. I haven't read the article and I won't.

But, like, to frame this as "building a wall" versus "building a wall" is brutally stupid because one is a security apparatus operating around the clock to keep out the undesirable races and the other is someone piling rocks up and leaving them there. In one case "blocking the view" is a relevant complaint and in the other case it isn't.


You're prioritising form over content. Merely because something is summed up the same way it doesn't mean that the full extent of the ideas behind the statement are the same.

Asterios wrote:

there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.

As I have said before, "Mexican" is not a racially neutral term in the US. When Trump talks about Mexicans he doesn't mean blue-eyed people nor does his audience interpret him as talking about being blue-eyed people.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.

What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.

furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?

Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.

there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.

as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.

This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.

@ Preston John: I get the idea from common sense. It seems obvious to me that some rights would be more valuable to an individual than others.

I understand your point that they are not put into an order of importance Constitutionally.

Inherently, we have no rights, except perhaps the right to be food.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.

What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.

furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?

Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.

there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.

as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.

This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.

"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.

What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.

furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?

Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.

there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.

as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.

This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.

"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."

QED.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.

What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.

furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?

Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.

there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.

as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.

This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.

so you are saying that all those non-Americans who speak bad about the US are racists then ?

 jasper76 wrote:
@ Preston John: I get the idea from common sense. It seems obvious to me that some rights would be more valuable to an individual than others.

I understand your point that they are not put into an order of importance Constitutionally.

Inherently, we have no rights, except perhaps the right to be food.

Are you referring to value in the sense of individual preference or value in terms of legal significance? The law and the courts should value all rights equally because the law applies to everyone equally. A person might cherish his/her right to free speech more than his/her right to not incriminate herself/himself in court but that is irrelevant to the courts upholding our rights equally.

I would argue that we all have inherent natural rights, we simply don't all live under governments that recognize and protect all our rights.

Prestor Jon wrote:

"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."

Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I would argue that we all have inherent natural rights, we simply don't all live under governments that recognize and protect all our rights.

And what decides these rights then?

@Preston John: I was referring to people's preferences and also the benefits that a right provides to an individual, and not about legal significance.

Inherent natural rights? Sounds like magic. If a starving bear won't respect it, it's not an inherent right. That's my 2 cents anyway.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.

What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.

furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?

Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.

there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.

as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.

This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.

"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."

QED.

Right, because pointing out that your chosen terminology doesn't make sense is the same thing as disputing that your premise is wrong or is an attack on your or makes me "right wing." Racism, bias and prejudice all have their own meanings, you shouldn't conflate the terms in ways that don't make sense given those meanings.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
this is not a fence it is a wall around his whole property which has now obstructed views others have enjoyed long before he showed up.

What's your point? As a conservative and (presumably) someone who is in favor of property rights how is this a problem? You don't have a right to an unrestricted view across my property just because you really want to enjoy the view.

furthermore he condones Trump for wanting to build a wall, tell me why are you against the US building a wall?

Because the border wall is a laughably bad idea from a civil engineering point of view, regardless of your political opinions. It would cost an obscene amount of money to build it, far more than the value of any possible benefits, and an obscene amount of money to keep guards along the whole length of the wall to keep anyone from breaking through it. And I suspect Trump knows perfectly well that this is not a viable plan (otherwise he needs to fire all of his advisors), making the whole thing nothing more than thinly-veiled "keep the Mexicans out, America is for white people" racism rather than a serious policy statement.

there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.

as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built, as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.

This is the part where I explain that cultural racism is a thing and all the right-wing posters on Dakka dogpile on me for daring to suggest such a thing.

so you are saying that all those non-Americans who speak bad about the US are racists then ?

I'm going to ask you to explain how you came to that conclusion, because I'm not seeing it.

I'm saying that the same arguments that were once used to discriminate based on imagined "races" are now being used to discriminate based on ethnic or cultural basis. The classical, biological racism of the first half of the 20th century is nowhere near as accepted in society anymore, so the arguments have moved on to attacking new groups, but it's the same ugly BS as base.

Asterios wrote:
there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.

Ok, because you insist on nitpicking the word rather than addressing the substance of the argument we'll call it culture-ism. Happy?

as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built

IOW "the magical fairies and unicorns will build it for me". That is not a realistic policy statement to make.

as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.

Oh really? Have you actually done the math on the respective costs of those two things, or are you just assuming that it will all magically work out that way?

Prestor Jon wrote:
My right to my own person isn't afforded any stronger constitutional protection than my right to keep and bear arms.

Actually it is afforded more weakly.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Preston John: I was referring to people's preferences and also the benefits that a right provides to an individual, and not about legal significance.

Inherent natural rights? Sounds like magic. If a starving bear won't respect it, it's not an inherent right. That's my 2 cents anyway.

Starving bears don't respect any of our rights so I guess we have none? The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them. Nobody has a right to rape or murder somebody even if some societies don't respect that right it doesn't mean that murder and rape don't violate a person's inherent right to be secure in their own person and life.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."

Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.

last I checked Muslims or Islams come in many colors and races, furthermore when I talk about keeping illegals out I don't go by race but all illegals anyone who enters this country illegally should be kicked out regardless of race or color, but its typical Liberal behavior to use the race card, forgetting that illegals are more then one color, but go ahead and deny the truth.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
there you go getting all racist saying Mexicans are a race? they are not they are a culture and a people from a country called Mexico, to say they are all one race is racist in itself.

Ok, because you insist on nitpicking the word rather than addressing the substance of the argument we'll call it culture-ism. Happy?

as to cost, he said he plans to have Mexico pay for it, if not then it does not get built

IOW "the magical fairies and unicorns will build it for me". That is not a realistic policy statement to make.

as to cost of guards that would be a shallow expense compared to the cost of all illegals of all races and colors who enter this country.

Oh really? Have you actually done the math on the respective costs of those two things, or are you just assuming that it will all magically work out that way?

1: much better but still wide of the mark, since Mexicans are not the only culture that enter this country illegally thru the southern border.

actually after what i've seen my own Governor institute and sign into law pertaining to illegals, yes that is fact hell this state has spent more in the past 2 years on illegals (from drivers licenses, MediCal, schooling, medical insurance, lawyers(lawyers to help illegals become legal), we could fund guards on the wall for decades, so yeah.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I'm saying that the same arguments that were once used to discriminate based on imagined "races" are now being used to discriminate based on ethnic or cultural basis. The classical, biological racism of the first half of the 20th century is nowhere near as accepted in society anymore, so the arguments have moved on to attacking new groups, but it's the same ugly BS as base.

Race is inseparable from class and culture, anyway. If it weren't, rap wouldn't be understood as black and poor.

 dogma wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
My right to my own person isn't afforded any stronger constitutional protection than my right to keep and bear arms.

Actually it is afforded more weakly.

How so? Both are explicitly codified by constitutional amendments. Both have centuries of precedence and case law to back them up.

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."

Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.

last I checked Muslims or Islams come in many colors and races, furthermore when I talk about keeping illegals out I don't go by race but all illegals anyone who enters this country illegally should be kicked out regardless of race or color, but its typical Liberal behavior to use the race card, forgetting that illegals are more then one color, but go ahead and deny the truth.

You aren't even arguing against what he wrote, you're just restating it. Yes, anyone can convert to Islam and be a Muslim. Yet the people who talk of the looming threat of Islamisation of the West don't think about white people when they do.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I'm saying that the same arguments that were once used to discriminate based on imagined "races" are now being used to discriminate based on ethnic or cultural basis. The classical, biological racism of the first half of the 20th century is nowhere near as accepted in society anymore, so the arguments have moved on to attacking new groups, but it's the same ugly BS as base.

Race is inseparable from class and culture, anyway. If it weren't, rap wouldn't be understood as black and poor.

There are plenty of influential rappers that were/are neither black or poor. If anything rap is understood to be urban.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Preston John: I was referring to people's preferences and also the benefits that a right provides to an individual, and not about legal significance.

Inherent natural rights? Sounds like magic. If a starving bear won't respect it, it's not an inherent right. That's my 2 cents anyway.

Starving bears don't respect any of our rights so I guess we have none? The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them. Nobody has a right to rape or murder somebody even if some societies don't respect that right it doesn't mean that murder and rape don't violate a person's inherent right to be secure in their own person and life.

Yep. We have no inherent rights, unless you consider death a right. My point is that rights are an abstraction. There is nothing inherent about them at all. The reason we don't have the right to rape and murder is because our particular culture has outlawed those activities.

The "inherent right to be secure in person and life" is also a fiction. There is no such inherent right. We define it for ourselves, or it does not exist.

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."

Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.

last I checked Muslims or Islams come in many colors and races,

If you read my post you could see I said "they aren't really talking about all Muslims but scary brown people", so it was already addressed.

furthermore when I talk about keeping illegals out I don't go by race but all illegals anyone who enters this country illegally should be kicked out regardless of race or color, but its typical Liberal behavior to use the race card,

Or, maybe, just maybe, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about Trump and his rhetoric, and the rhetoric used by his supporters.

forgetting that illegals are more then one color, but go ahead and deny the truth.

No, I'm not. I'm taking about people trying to keep the "Mexicans" out. But yes, I'm sure Trump's retoric is talking about the 50K Irish illegal immigrants. Definitely.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I'm saying that the same arguments that were once used to discriminate based on imagined "races" are now being used to discriminate based on ethnic or cultural basis. The classical, biological racism of the first half of the 20th century is nowhere near as accepted in society anymore, so the arguments have moved on to attacking new groups, but it's the same ugly BS as base.

Race is inseparable from class and culture, anyway. If it weren't, rap wouldn't be understood as black and poor.

Eminem is Black?

oh wait what about golf its termed as an old white sport you know like Tiger Woods, oh wait hes not white either.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."

Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.

last I checked Muslims or Islams come in many colors and races, furthermore when I talk about keeping illegals out I don't go by race but all illegals anyone who enters this country illegally should be kicked out regardless of race or color, but its typical Liberal behavior to use the race card, forgetting that illegals are more then one color, but go ahead and deny the truth.

You aren't even arguing against what he wrote, you're just restating it. Yes, anyone can convert to Islam and be a Muslim. Yet the people who talk of the looming threat of Islamisation of the West don't think about white people when they do.

not me I'm thinking white, brown, black whatever color you think of when I think of Islamics and or Muslims.

but go ahead and be a racist and think all white people are thinking the way you are thinking we are thinking.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

"Cultural racism" is a nonsensical term. Instead of ignoring what "racism" actually means you should just use the term "cultural prejudice" or "cultural bias."

Eh, it's racism in the same way that being Islamophobic is racism. They aren't really talking about all Muslims, but the scary brown people. They say "Mexicans", but let's face it, they aren't just talking about people with Mexican citizenship, but Latinos. Think the "Mexican" judge, despite the fact that he is an American citizen born in America.

last I checked Muslims or Islams come in many colors and races,

If you read my post you could see I said "they aren't really talking about all Muslims but scary brown people", so it was already addressed.

furthermore when I talk about keeping illegals out I don't go by race but all illegals anyone who enters this country illegally should be kicked out regardless of race or color, but its typical Liberal behavior to use the race card,

Or, maybe, just maybe, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about Trump and his rhetoric, and the rhetoric used by his supporters.

forgetting that illegals are more then one color, but go ahead and deny the truth.

No, I'm not. I'm taking about people trying to keep the "Mexicans" out. But yes, I'm sure Trump's retoric is talking about the 50K Irish illegal immigrants. Definitely.

so now you are insulting me, i'm a Trump supporter, so now i'm a racist according to you, you just proved my point you threw out the race card when there is no race involved.

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Preston John: I was referring to people's preferences and also the benefits that a right provides to an individual, and not about legal significance.

Inherent natural rights? Sounds like magic. If a starving bear won't respect it, it's not an inherent right. That's my 2 cents anyway.

Starving bears don't respect any of our rights so I guess we have none? The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them. Nobody has a right to rape or murder somebody even if some societies don't respect that right it doesn't mean that murder and rape don't violate a person's inherent right to be secure in their own person and life.

Yep. We have no inherent rights, unless you consider death a right. My point is that rights are an abstraction. There is nothing inherent about them at all. The reason we don't have the right to rape and murder is because our particular culture has outlawed those activities. There are and have been many cultures that normalize rape and murder.

Societies and social norms are abstract constructs, rights already exist. How can you argue that your body and your life don't belong to you? Who else would they belong to? You're alive, you have a body, it's yours, it's not somebody else's body. Since it isn't somebody else's body why would somebody else have a right to it? To create that right to somebody else's body you first have to create a society and build into that society the concept that it's ok to own other people's bodies. To acknowledge that fact that your body is yours you don't need to construct any society or social values at all.

A wall is a stupid idea. Maintaining a constand armed garrison is extremely expensive, and even in places where walls exist today, they are routinely (and literally) undermined and bypassed. They also dont fly well socially or culturally for a society like ours. Reference Berlin. And no, Mexico is never going to fund the bulding of a wall, if anyone is *actually* thinking that there is even a remote chance that will happen, you are insane. Additionally, most people come through at an actual crossing anyway, not something a wall would stop.

More to the point, there are compelling interests in the US that drive it. Without migrant (and largely illegal) labor, agriculture becomes dramatically more expensive. Who works in the fields of central CA and the ranches of Texas? Largely migrant and illegal workers.

The best option? Work on helping conditions in these people's home countries and redirecting the domestic demand for that labor to something else. Without that, you can build all the walls you like, it wont change anything.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Societies and social norms are abstract constructs, rights already exist. How can you argue that your body and your life don't belong to you? Who else would they belong to? You're alive, you have a body, it's yours, it's not somebody else's body. Since it isn't somebody else's body why would somebody else have a right to it? To create that right to somebody else's body you first have to create a society and build into that society the concept that it's ok to own other people's bodies. To acknowledge that fact that your body is yours you don't need to construct any society or social values at all.

I don't know, slavery was an accepted part of many cultures for a very long time. Same for the way many cultures treated women as property.

And, again (I think you missed it the first time as it was in an edit), what decides these rights?

 Vaktathi wrote:
A wall is a stupid idea. Maintaining a constand armed garrison is extremely expensive, and even in places where walls exist today, they are routinely (and literally) undermined and bypassed. They also dont fly well socially or culturally for a society like ours. Reference Berlin. And no, Mexico is never going to fund the bulding of a wall, if anyone is *actually* thinking that there is even a remote chance that will happen, you are insane. Additionally, most people come through at an actual crossing anyway, not something a wall would stop.

More to the point, there are compelling interests in the US that drive it. Without migrant (and largely illegal) labor, agriculture becomes dramatically more expensive. Who works in the fields of central CA and the ranches of Texas? Largely migrant and illegal workers.

The best option? Work on helping conditions in these people's home countries and redirecting the domestic demand for that labor to something else. Without that, you can build all the walls you like, it wont change anything.

and there you would be wrong, people always assume it is illegals that work in the fields, it is not, it is legal (work visa and all) workers and natural American citizens who work the fields, sure you might have the odd illegal who snuck in but very few if any do work in that field.