I'm pretty unhappy about how this went, I try to remain on topic, I try to give the benefit of the doubt and not hurl accusations etc even my rhetorical questions may appear to be inflammatory... The more explicit I get the more autobretzeltwisting it elicits. And it creates these weird situations where it appears like I'm the one not understanding the other's position just because my rebuttal consciously avoids parotting back what I perceive as weaponized language... So let me try (I'm not sure anybody could relate) to derail this headache because we have landed far from the discussing the cost/benefit of an actual physical wall anyway... and this doesn't have to be verbal trench warfare.
When I use buzzwords, I tend to treat them poorly, I attempt to apply a chainsaw to them... There is nothing like a buzzword which has developed multiple meanings within different groups, to really mess up proper attempts at dialogue.
The other day I read somewhere this very cliché sentence: "just because you have a reason to be angry it's no excuse for your behaviour" and I have been thinking about it oftentimes... A reason not qualifying as excuse is such ass backwards euphemism think typical of everything that is broken with discourse. A reason is an actual thoughtobject it is as tangible as it will get in the realm of ideas, an excuse on the other hand is a flimsy rhetorical trick, nothing but the sorry shadow of a reason, in which we hide in lack of an actual reason, hoping to be unseen/ignored for what we are or did, and forgotten quickly. Think about it, it's not even disempowering to the notion of being excused, on the contrary, to excuse somebody is to grant them largesse when you know their reasons don't hold up to scrutiny. I know I'm rambling but it seems to be such a prime example how my brain seems to be wired reversely, or at least in a way that gives off that impression. So I suppose it can be difficult to get what I'm saying when I'm fluently switching between different sets of dictionnaries so to say, mixed with heavy doses of sarcasm. Just know that is not my goal to win any arguments like this is a competition, for that I'd have to believe communication is actually effective, I just get incredibly angry at some narratives and then I have to resist, redirect the energy where it came from, like a tree vs a car, I aim to be only vicious to ideas and the reason it might not come across as such is that I got full-on truckloads of frustration to... share. lol And I'm tired, oh so very tired of lengthy texts going back and renegotiating the very basics, the things that were obvious not so long ago. Man when I listen to political satire from 10-15 years ago, it sounds nothing like a joke anymore, just like a sober lecture.
I am not spewing someone else's point of view about the wall. I don't know all the narratives. I believe there needs to be something to block traffic at points on that border to help deal with dangerous traffic (migrants are not dangerous!).
I am not trying to get you angry by rehashing this... Look at the southern border, it is a messed up 2000 mile line and that is a lot of territory.
The pre-Trump wall blocks about 20% of it and natural terrain blocks some amount as well, Trump added another 5% of wall. At every airport and waterport in the USA, and in the waters off every coast, and on the Canadian coast, there are watched borders, because dangerous things may be entering or exiting. The southern border needs to be watched also. Let me clarify what is dangerous.. the same things that you don't want going into your country..... automatic weapons, land to air rockets, fissionable materials, heroin (and all the similar life-wrecking drugs), jerks who would want to blow up a city block, or blow up a city (I don't consider those to be migrants). You don't want that stuff in your country, I don't want it in mine.... and worse, I know some ppl really want that stuff to get into the US. That is my perspective on the border wall.
Ask me questions about the migrants if you want... they are not part of my concerns about the borders, they are a separate and important human rights issue.
I paraphrased some of what I have said before and it might not be as precise as before, but maybe putting these together in one blob makes it more clear. I don't want lunatics with bombs in my life, nothing good can come from it.
=============
EDIT: more....
That's.... not what that term means, at all. It's a crime that was committed without premeditation. Hard stop. There's no implication of blame on a victim. "Invading a weaker country and putting the population into economic or actual slavery" is exceptionally premeditated.
So, making your plan during a 2 second window involved no planning? Let's look at that again... "I need something and I can't pay for it, so I am waiting near the stuff and when the the vendor moves away, I will grab it"... no planning there. Take is a step further in the
wikipedia and:
This theory focuses on the right circumstances for a crime of opportunity to occur.[1] The three main components of this theory emphasize an offender, suitable target and the lack of a capable guardian.
That last part about "lack of capable guardian"... You ask an opportunistic street thief what that means and he'll give you a grin and say, "Capable? No one I have met was capable when I wanted their stuff. You just need to distract them and take it". That bit about "premeditation"... someone who has begun to consider obtaining something by theft/force/etc has started the process of premeditation; they have become
willing to commit the wrong. So I disagree.... there are no "crimes of opportunity", it is just a legal buzzword used among the court workforce to attempt to diminish the wrong, probably used for first-time offenders and for "noble" children, to get them out of the system.
He's saying that the analogy of a locked front door or a wallet is not a applicable analogy to the wall, because a locked front door prevents someone from walking by, seeing an open door and walking in. People crossing the border illegally are engaging in premeditated acts. Your front door means jack to someone who knows it's there and came with a lockpick. Your wallet being in your pocket is just fine to a mugger. And if that's not what he's saying, I'm saying it.
I disagree. The presence of a wall is the implication that crossing at that location is illegal. The presence of a locked door is also the implication that crossing there is illegal. The presence of your wallet in your pocket (compared to, on the ground somewhere) is the implication that it is owned.
In the same way, the wall means jack to someone who showed up specifically to climb over. That means you need people to patrol it, or surveil it, and that means even more cost. Why the hell do you have a wall if you have to walk the same number of people or drones back and forth over that terrain anyway? The wall is and was a pointless endeavor.
I covered that in the first post...
No, no, no... Walls are still effective. If someone puts up a wall, quality or not, there is that implication that bypassing it is illegal. If you force legal traffic to cross the border elsewhere, it means that aerial surveillance of that wall section does not need to question the legality of traffic bypassing the wall. Forcing legal traffic elsewhere is the important bit. It increases the land area that can be observed by machinery and high altitude surveillance.
Remember the
War on Drugs? You do not buy a completely new set of assets to jumpstart an operation like that, you bring in existing resources, the military. Satellite and/or high-altitude aircraft, an array of cameras providing images to software that compares images and kick anomalies to an office, the office updates parameters on the software as needed. Combined with ground-based cameras and probably other sensors.
This wall is not about the migrants, it is about all the other stuff. Well, it was not about the migrants until Trump took some existing anti-migration rhetoric and made a new smoothie out of "migrants, wall, border, jobs, great!".Are you advocating this or arguing against?
Should that really be up for consideration until after we are all talking about the same thing?
But I am glad it got back to that first post. I think it was misunderstood.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4474863 times)