President Trump

Appreciate the link, but yeah, I already take for granted that this is all horrible and potentially traumatizing.

I ignored the first few references to death and danger because the argument, at first, only hinged on the idea that they were being harmed in some way, so the distinction didn't matter. Now the distinction between trauma and death is being asked to hold pretty much the whole weight of the argument, so it's become necessary to clarify that point.

Perhaps the parents of the 70,000 unaccompanied minors who were SENT on unprotected journeys through Central America to the U.S. in 2014 should read this article.

It's funny how the left (who are suddenly so concerned about children and want to condemn the government for its law enforcement) don't seem to have any condemnation for parents who intentionally separated their own children from their families to send them unaccompanied out into some of the harshest, most violent areas, or for parents who endanger their children by involving them in illegal trespassing.

I think you're still confusing deflections with arguments.

"Let's talk about these other people doing something bad" is not a defense of whatever you're ostensibly defending. The question is what we do now, and how, and talking about how we got here--while relevant for other questions--is not an answer to either of those.

I'm just suggesting that parents who willfully separate their own children from them should read that article, especially when the trend to do so became epidemic in certain areas in 2014, but which the same people outraged now had no problem with then.

And that those who use crises as political ammunition should view similar crises in similar ways, not ignore them in one instance then become spontaneously enraged when it becomes advantageous to use their sudden-found outrage as a political weapon against someone else.

That is a double standard - and if any situation exemplified the double standard, this past week has been it.

i believe I Rex already responded to you when you said this earlier in the thread, citing the many differences between what's happening now vs. what happened in 2014. you didn't respond to it, so, forgive me for not bothering to take the time to responding to this latest dig

__________________
letterboxd

You don't have to respond and I'm sad you take it as a dig. I'm not making digs, I'm being pretty straight forward about those engaging in political double standards who's motives are ulterior (they're not really concerned about the welfare of children at all times, only when it becomes politically expedient to do so).

mexico 2040 . back to the past .

i haven't read all the arguments here but i can't help wondering if people who don't really care for children and don't bother to produce them are suddenly and hypocritically showing great concern for other peoples' children due to their hatred for trump

I'm disappointed with the adding of political motivation for child protection. For me, politics do not influence my principles; rather, my principles dictate my politics. That's always been the case for me and has changed over time as I learn more about myself, the world around me, and my interactions with the world.

No political group checks all the points for me and several points feather over many groups. While ideology may be an obvious attraction, it is action, motivation, and tactics of that group that usually hold my sway. Or repulse me away.

As to children, I have none. I do not show concern for these children because I hate Trump. Actually, I would hope we are all concerned for children's safety regardless of political lines to include understanding the motivation of why these parents would risk their safety to come to America. I am disappointed in Trump as a representative of conservative family values in part because of how I feel the whole thing was a political means to an end (motivation and tactic) to deter immigration. Maybe THAT is hypocritical of me to state considering my first sentence, but observation has not taken place in a vacuum.

Why do you think saying "I'm just" followed by repeating yourself is a response?

People being hypocrites a) doesn't make them wrong about a given topic, and b) is not a defense of the policy being discussed. If you're "just" here to say people are hypocrites and are going to refuse any topic or framing which doesn't allow you to artificially control the scope of a conversation, I'd recommend blogger.com. You can use that to talk as much as you please about a given topic without the inconvenience of anyone else's agency.

i don't have abortions either but i still fight for others right to do so

Good post ynwtf...I like what you said and how you said it.

I don't have children either and while I am concerned about any children being mistreated...I also have another concern, which is: Trump's actions with immigration & children are going to give America a bad reputation in the world. I don't want the world to view America as an abusive country, but Trump is not setting a good example. He's Making America Hated Again.

I'm American, I love my country and I feel lucky to live here, but I hate how Trump has brought ugly to the forefront. All the world is watching us, do we really want to be seen in such a poor light?

I disagree Rules, America has been this way for a minute now and that's the real problem here. Trump is just a by-product of our system. Like it or not, he is us. We have got to stop denying this and embrace the horror if we can ever hope to change ourselves and this nation.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

In regards to the article ash linked - I said parents who sent their children unaccompanied to the U.S. should also read it.

So the "I'm just" is "I'm just saying maybe those who abandon children should read the article. Because with the added knowledge, some may weigh the alternatives and decide that trying to make things better where they are might be a better option for their children than separating their children from them and sending them off into the unknown alone."

Then (nothing to do with the article) I pointed out the double standard that relates to both the incidents of unaccompanied minors AND to the current issue of separating families (that those so "outraged" over the latter right now expressed little concern for the former a few years ago).

Why is it important to understand the double standards of the unethical?
Because maybe if those who operate from ulterior motives (the left) were honest, then those who sincerely care for the welfare of children, all children, could have their awareness raised before things get out of hand and do something positive, while those who feign concern as they create or use crises only at times when it's politically expedient, to use as a weapon against one person, can get lost.

Do you agree that things for children would get better if we didn't have people involved who ignore the problems until they find an opportune time to exploit the kids' situations for their own political gain, then refuse to rectify them even though it's within their power and is their responsibility to do so because they think continuing the kids' suffering can make a single individual they don't like look bad?

First, the fact that your response to me pointing out you're repeating yourself is to repeat yourself is just...chefkiss.gif

Second, yes, I know the above is what you were saying. There's no confusion on that point. I then made my own point (which is a thing that happens in discussions sometimes!) about how you just want to talk about how people are hypocrites and otherwise not really engage on the topic. Your response to this has been to repeat yourself twice, adding only the words "I'm just."

The fact that someone else making their own point can throw you so much seems to illustrate what I'm saying pretty well. "Wait, but that's not what I said! You're saying different things! I don't want to talk about those things, so here's what I said again."

Hey, neat trick, asking yourself questions about the thing you want to discuss to make it sound like you're having a discussion.

I didn't suggest double standards don't matter (I actually said the opposite here). I said that calling people hypocrites doesn't make them wrong, and thus exposing double standards is not actually a substantive point about the policy the rest of us are actually discussing here.

You've positively mutilated the ordinary form of a question here to make the standard "the left are hypocrites" line seem like it's connected to the topic.

Yes, it would be better. And it'd be better for the discourse in general if people only entered discussions they were interested in having, with other human beings, as opposed to seeing them as insertion points for whatever opinion they're trying to make people listen to.

That is why you are a hypocrite if you are showing concern for those stranded kids . you don't mind children getting killed in the womb , but suddenly those kids are important .

I can agree with a lot of what you said, except: "Like it or not, he is us."...More accurate to say: Like it or not, he is some of us.

It's only hypocrisy if she believes born and unborn children are identical.

You can suggest her distinction between the two is wrong, mistaken, rationalizing, or a hundred other things, but it's not inherently or inevitably hypocritical to show concern for one group and not another if they're not identical.

Chris, I don't know why you're arguing with me now - it seemed like a page back we were on the same side of the issue.

If I'm repeating myself it's because no one seems to want to acknowledge the point, or attempt to refute it if they think it's wrong, or when people seem to not understand what I'm saying since what I'm saying is only met with criticisms of how I'm saying it. (So I try to say it again in terms that maybe will be understood the next time.)

I'm not here to dissect how people express themselves or defend how I express myself (a lot of people tell me my writing is easy to understand, even if or when they don't agree with the sentiment, but I'm obviously not beyond producing the occasional run on sentence as noted!)

I'm here discussing the issue at hand. I'm not going to debate you because you only seem interested in debating how I'm writing and the logistics of how people express an opinion.

I'm not arguing, since I haven't heard any substantial refutations to argue with, I'm just expressing my opinion about the political games going on around this situation and wondering why what seems so obvious to some does not seem obvious to some others visiting this thread.

she is a young woman and probably wants to have abortions if she does get pregnant . so when she is fighting for others right to abort she is fighting for herself too .