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.

 d-usa wrote:
And you are awfully confident in stating that this was done for political purposes for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.

A lot of "look, look! They are trying to be less specific by being more specific!" going on in this thread.

Man, is that really what you guys are talking yourselves into believing?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And you are awfully confident in stating that this was done for political purposes for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.

A lot of "look, look! They are trying to be less specific by being more specific!" going on in this thread.

Man, is that really what you guys are talking yourselves into believing?

Just a simple question then:

What is more specific and accurate?

1) Illegal Immigrant
2) Immigrant on an expired work visa.

 d-usa wrote:

Just a simple question then:

What is more specific and accurate?

1) Illegal Immigrant
2) Immigrant on an expired work visa.

Number 2's more specific, Number 1's more accurate.

So "rapist" is more accurate than "child rapist", and "felon" is more accurate than "murderer"?

Why do you think a broader term is more accurate than a more specific term?

 d-usa wrote:
So "rapist" is more accurate than "child rapist", and "felon" is more accurate than "murderer"?

No, as neither of those are analogous to what you actually proposed.

Why do you think a broader term is more accurate than a more specific term?

Probably because it's not accurate within the confines of the immigration debate. You're not an immigrant once your visa goes. You're here illegally at that point.

Out of curiosity, would you say, "immigrant with an unexpired work visa" when talking about someone in someone who was in the country legally with an unexpired work visa? If not, why not?

Isn't that whole "work visa" thing a bit of a red herring anyway?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So "rapist" is more accurate than "child rapist", and "felon" is more accurate than "murderer"?

No, as neither of those are analogous to what you actually proposed.

But it is. You say that the broad category of an offense is more accurate than the specific offense, so why is it only applicable to certain categories?

Why do you think a broader term is more accurate than a more specific term?

Probably because it's not accurate within the confines of the immigration debate. You're not an immigrant once your visa goes. You're here illegally at that point.

Out of curiosity, would you say, "immigrant with an unexpired work visa" when talking about someone in someone who was in the country legally with an unexpired work visa? If not, why not?

Would you say "person who has not raped anybody yet" when talking about somebody who has never committed the crime of rape? If not, why not?

 d-usa wrote:
But it is. You say that the broad category of an offense is more accurate than the specific offense, so why is it only applicable to certain categories?

But it isn't. I did not, in fact, say the broad category of an offense is more accurate than the specific offense, I said the broad, accurate label is more accurate than the specific, inaccurate one. Since you seem to really want to break it down in terms of rape, an entirely non-analogous bit of illegal behavior, I'm not really sure where we're going to go from here.

Would you say "person who has not raped anybody yet" when talking about somebody who has never committed the crime of rape? If not, why not?

Because it's an irrelevant level of specificity for which a term encompassing a much broader range of individuals functions better.

So are you also angry when news companies refer to people as "refugees, migrant workers, legal residents, 'here on student visa'", etc instead of "legal immigrant"?

 d-usa wrote:
So are you also angry when news companies refer to people as "refugees, migrant workers, legal residents, 'here on student visa'", etc instead of "legal immigrant"?

No, because I've never seen that done. A story that deals with a broad class of legal immigrants does not mention every single type of legal immigrant every time it refers to the concept of legal immigration, and when it needs to put forth specific examples, it uses specific details. Which, of course, is exactly the same as it is with a story about illegal immigration.

Whereas a story specifically about migrant workers will refer specifically to migrant workers, and the same is true of a story about a specific subset of illegal immigrants.

Good. The world is nowhere near PC enough.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
The AP adopted this proposal either because they believed their readers would prefer it, or it eliminated a loaded phrase; the latter being a major component of reporting.

You're awfully confident in stating things as fact for a guy who wasn't in on any of the discussion, as far as I'm aware.

Fair enough, I should have said "The AP probably..."

But lets be realistic here, the worst case scenario is that the AP is deliberately attempting to manipulate political discourse...which is what the AP necessarily does by way of being a major news organization. The AP can attempt to be politically neutral, and generally it does, but even that fundamentally alters the political landscape. Which is why I find it so baffling that people get bent out of shape over things like this.

But whatever, its the United States, everyone has be in strident opposition to something.

 Polonius wrote:
I could care less.

You couldn't care less, is what I believe you meant to say there. By the by that nonsensical phrase is far more grating than any configuration of how people describe immigrants.

 dogma wrote:
Has anyone claimed that they are not?

Phrases like "pin the blame" indicate that a person or group is not at fault, but being blamed for the actions of someone else

 dogma wrote:
You can, but you've already let emotion bleed all over your sleeve, so it won't seem genuine.

So having a strong opinion on a topic is letting "emotion bleed all over your sleeve" and therefore any opinion on the matter can be discounted, especially the arguments advanced that don't suit you. That sounds perfectly reasonable

 dogma wrote:
And?

So my having a strong opinion on a topic eliminates any genuine intent on my part (per your argument), but an illegal immigrant looking to change the language in the immigration debate, at a time when an amnesty for illegal immigrants is being strongly considered, to remove the stigma of their law breaking and to potentially omit factual details to garner public sympathy for illegal immigrants and you just say "And?"

 dogma wrote:
The AP adopted this proposal either because they believed their readers would prefer it, or it eliminated a loaded phrase; the latter being a major component of reporting.

No, that's not why the adopted it. Read the article. Then understand that they willfully conflated illegal acts with criminal acts to make their point, thus showing their dishonest intentions.

 dogma wrote:
But whatever, its the United States, everyone has be in strident opposition to something.

So there can't be a genuine reason for being opposed to something? We all just have to be opposed to something because of the country we reside in (not necessarily born in), and if you have an strong opinion on something you won't seem genuine anyway

 d-usa wrote:
What is more specific and accurate?

1) Illegal Immigrant
2) Immigrant on an expired work visa.

It depends. Did that person enter illegally after paying coyotes to smuggle them in? Did that person outstay their tourist visa? Did that person outstay their student visa? Did that person enter under a K1 visa and not get married within the proscribed time? Did that person enter under the Visa Waiver program and outstay the 90 days?
All those are more accurately described as illegal immigrants if those are the two options being given. Even the expired work visa is still an illegal immigrant as they are an immigrant who has not followed immigration law.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Phrases like "pin the blame" indicate that a person or group is not at fault, but being blamed for the actions of someone else.

No, they don't. One can be at fault, and still find themselves burdened by the fault of others. I believe the term is "scapegoat".

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So having a strong opinion on a topic is letting "emotion bleed all over your sleeve" and therefore any opinion on the matter can be discounted, especially the arguments advanced that don't suit you. That sounds perfectly reasonable

Yes, having a strong opinion on a topic is "letting emotion bleed all over your sleeve".

Where the remaining components of your argument came from is anyone's guess, but they certainly weren't implied by my initial statement regarding your sentiment pertaining to employers viz. illegal immigration.

 dogma wrote:

So my having a strong opinion on a topic eliminates any genuine intent on my part (per your argument)...

No, per your argument. The one you made by clumsily citing a comment of mine out of context. I believe its called "Breitbarting". Though "O'keefing" or "Olbermanning" would work just as well.

While I enjoy a good bit of sophist banter, you honestly suck at it; so I'm bowing out.

 dogma wrote:
No, they don't. One can be at fault, and still find themselves burdened by the fault of others. I believe the term is "scapegoat".

Both are viable, as is "whipping boy".
In this instance the fault lies with the people who broke the law - the immigrant and the person hiring them. There is no need to pin, or otherwise assign, the blame on them, as both are culpable

 dogma wrote:
Yes, having a strong opinion on a topic is "letting emotion bleed all over your sleeve".

Where the remaining components of your argument came from is anyone's guess, but they certainly weren't implied by my initial statement regarding your sentiment pertaining to employers viz. illegal immigration.

When you set out to play the player and not the ball, it generally gives the impression that you can't/won't counter the argument advanced. Especially when no effort is made to actually counter the argument. When you say that an alleged emotion based response (ignoring all the other perfectly reasonable responses to date) renders a person's argument void that's just a tactic to shut someone out of the debate. So yes, they were heavily implied by your statement.

 dogma wrote:
No, per your argument. The one you made by clumsily citing a comment of mine out of context. I believe its called "Breitbarting". Though "O'keefing" or "Olbermanning" would work just as well.

While I enjoy a good bit of sophist banter, you honestly suck at it; so I'm bowing out.

I quoted your exact words and you have had ample opportunity to provide context, which you have chosen not to do. You then ignored the rest of what I said. The rest is a vain attempt to scramble for the moral high ground, get in a cheap dig and think that you can leave the thread with your dignity intact.

 BolingbrokeIV wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I could care less.

You couldn't care less, is what I believe you meant to say there. By the by that nonsensical phrase is far more grating than any configuration of how people describe immigrants.

He probably couldn't care less about what people think about him/her when he/she says "I could care less".

I can't believe these circular arguments went on for 6 pages!

This could be the best Trolling I have ever seen.

 Easy E wrote:
I can't believe these circular arguments went on for 6 pages!

This could be the best Trolling I have ever seen.

I've seen better.

But not many.