Adios, Amigo (Mal and summary executions)

[Mal_Reynolds]

Some people think that "logical argument" means "play nice and don't get on my case for failing to produce evidence to support my claims".

Seems to me that I'm the one who's being flakked for "not being nice" -- and I have presented evidence that supports my claims, which your boy Nitram just flatly ignores.

What Shitwit doesn't realize is that if he submitted a paper to a review board in a university and refused to provide sources for his claims other than bloggers repeating each other, they would flunk him.

And logical argument, as I told SirNitram, doesn't include trying to just dismiss information because you don't respect the source. I suppose if a blogger posited that 2 + 2 = 4 it would revolutionize your view of mathematics.

"A place for logical argument" doesn't mean "you can get away with bloody murder and no one will do anything to you".

Well. No shit.

[Mal_Reynolds]

I wonder where people like him get this idea that "logical argument" means that the standards are less strict. It means the opposite: standards are more strict, and you can't participate if you ignore those standards.

SirNitram has failed pretty spectacularly so far to show that I've employed fallacious argument, and has flatly refused to concede his own fallacies. Would you like to take a shot at it?

Keep lying. I stand by the record. You are free to still meet your burden of proof, but I can see you'd rather defend the idea that 'Demographic Takeover' is anything but a phrase racists use to declare that the area's not 'pure' enough.

Again with the ad hominem. Demographic takeover = citizens of one country displacing citizens of another. It has nothing whatsoever to do with race.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Don't think I'm abandoning this -- real life is interfering with the fun for now, but (unless that "concede or we'll ban you" threat is carried out) I'll be back.

[SirNitram]

Again with the ad hominem.

You wish. I'm insulting you because you refuse to answer points.

Demographic takeover = citizens of one country displacing citizens of another.

And where's your justification for this definition? Where's your proof it's happening? Oh yea. Your ass. And maybe Wikipedia, which is about as good.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with race.

Yea, that's what racists tend to say when they get caught. I notice you don't seem interested in actually answering what's been put before you.

It's amusing. The same thing happened with a pileon of worthless shithead newbs when they thought they could tackle me a little while back. They even whined to Mike. Didn't do much good.

[Surlethe]

I wonder where people like him get this idea that "logical argument" means that the standards are less strict.

The idea is born of arrogance: they assume all of their arguments are logical and valid; thus, they will be accepted and they will pass the standards. Of course, the idea is, since they are naturally in the ninetieth percentile or above in terms of logical and rational intellect, they'll rise to be respected members of the boards. Unfortunately, they don't realize constructing an argument requires effort, and, because they feel their arguments are, by definition, logical, they don't need to go to the trouble of working at it. It thus comes as a surprise and great disappointment to fuckwits like Mal when his arguments get shot down, thus demonstrating these boards are not, in fact, havens of logical thought.

[brianeyci]

Wow you're a dumbass, demographic takeover is a racist terminology used by white supremacists. Either you're ignorant of the term or you're deliberately lying. Kind of like how creationists want it called intelligent design or teaching the controversy... take off the wrapper and it's all about race. Citizens of another country can't vote legally in an election so there is no takeover by illegal aliens.

Brian

[SirNitram]

Some people think that "logical argument" means "play nice and don't get on my case for failing to produce evidence to support my claims".

Seems to me that I'm the one who's being flakked for "not being nice" -- and I have presented evidence that supports my claims, which your boy Nitram just flatly ignores.

What is it with these whiny twats and running to Mike over how big and bad I am? Are these people all so spineless?

[Surlethe]

Either you're ignorant of the term or you're deliberately lying.

Kind of like how he was using "invasion" to mean an encroachment of civilians, and then turning right around to use "invasion" to justify use of military force against Mexico.

[Zero]

Alright Mal, I'm gonna lay it all out for you really straight and simple. First off, you're wrong about Mexico 'invading' the states. Demographic takeover really only translates down to you being a xenophobic racist fuck.

Wrong. Demographic takeover really translates to numbers of non-citizens occupying U.S. territory.

I'm going to pull something you've pulled numerous times. Definition time!

Demographic means that it relates to demography, and demography is the study of characteristics of human populations.

Takeover is the act or an instance of assuming control or management of or responsibility for something, especially the seizure of power, as in a nation, political organization, or corporation.

In this case, the characteristic appears to be nationalistic: whether they're mexicans or not, and the takeover is mostly imaginary. There's no seizure of power going on in any way. You seem to be pissed that there are going to be more mexicans here, but that's not a takeover, it's just a different kind of demographic shift, to put it in your words.

Demographic takeover could occur legally as well.

No it couldn't, because if it happened legally it wouldn't be a takeover, just a demographic shift within America's citizenry.

By any reasonable definition, there's no difference at all between a "demographic takeovre" and a demographic shift.

200+ in a 10 year period. That's like your neighbor accidentally wandering into your house 23 times in one year, or just under twice, every month.

There's a lot of border out there. Several thousand miles. Mistakes happen, and 10 years is actually a decent stretch of time, too. And the mistake would be closer to accidentally trespassing onto your property when mowing the lawn. Except, of course, in the cases where there's shooting; that's more akin to your neighbor's kid and his three friends egging your house.

Nothing except a vast amount of income from vast amounts of drug sales of vast amounts of weed.

At this venture, I'll do something that you won't even consider: I conceed this point. Drug sales do make some bank, although it's non-taxable, since it's illegal, so it won't matter a whole hell of a lot for the federal government.

And from the drug cartels into the Mexican economy, which needs all the help it can get, and which help the Mexican government permits -- and according to the second sourced article in the other thread, assists and the accounts of Mexican military escorting and forcibly defending drug shipments, assists.

Mexico hasn't always been cooperative with drug policy in the past, but that's changing, and there's no real evidence to implicate the Mexican federal government in the drug trade.

And this means what? Are they recruiting their uniforms and equipment as well?

Defectors from the military steal the equipment.

I've never said, even once, that illegal immigration is the biggest problem the US faces. Anywhere.

When I said it wasn't, you asked me to name more important ones, as if it was a dare of some kind. You didn't say it, but you implied it.

It is supported by military action -- or if you prefer, paramilitary action which Mexico's government takes no steps to end.

Even if illegal immigration is supported by the Mexican military, you can't reasonably call it a takeover. They aren't acquiring land or political power for the Mexican government.

Substantiate that Mexico's government is taking any active steps to end the problem.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cct ... 130151.htm

No, Mexican civilians are coming into the US and declaring personal ownership of property, and when this is jeopardized, Mexican military assets ensure that it happens.

Mexican military assets don't intrude far into the border, and it's already been explained that most of these are understood to be accidents. The ones that aren't, I've already explained, almost certainly relate more to drug cartels, although I do admit that Mexico may have an interest in seeing these drug cartels succeed.

That's because our undeclared wars occurred in areas where open warfare was already ongoing.

Undeclared wars are still recognized as wars, and still involve many hostilities. Mexico's hostilities towards the US are extremely limited, and possibly non-existant, since drug cartels seem to be at the heart of any possible military action from Mexico.

I am neither full of shit, nor will I concede when I'm not wrong.

You won't conced when you are wrong, either.

[Grasscutter]

Some people think that "logical argument" means "play nice and don't get on my case for failing to produce evidence to support my claims".

Seems to me that I'm the one who's being flakked for "not being nice" -- and I have presented evidence that supports my claims, which your boy Nitram just flatly ignores.

I haven't seen any evidence that justifies your assertion that execution is a punishment befitting the crime of illegally crossing the U.S. border.

Your entire argument hinges on the analogy that illegal immigrants backed by Mexican troops is analogous to a violent home invasion. Let's assume for a second that this is correct. Even with violent home invasions, the offender is not summarily executed on the spot. If he is apprehended, he faces trial and punishment based on the severity of his crime. What happens if the police catch him in the act before he assaults or kills anyone? Last time I checked, even attempted murder does not automatically warrent the death penalty. So if you're going to defend your argument as logical, then you have to also assert that anyone guilty of repeatedly committing violent crimes should be shot.

People also have a problem with your seeming blanket application of lethal force, and you haven't addressed them. Does your policy apply to any and all repeat offenders? What about second-time offenders who surrender to the border patrol peacefully? What about immigrants who AREN'T escorted by armed men? Are you going to shoot them too? If yes, your violent home invasion analogy falls apart.

Further, your claim that Mexican military units are escorting illegal immigrants across our borders and these actions are fully endorsed by the Mexican government has not been conclusively proven. Several people have pointed out why this is not necessarily true. Hell, I'll join in: according to your logic if I put on some old BDUs from the Army Surplus store suddenly I'm a member of the U.S. military and a representative of U.S. foreign policy. I haven't seen you address these criticisms in a satisfactory manner. And by satisfactory, I mean going beyond posting a link or a plithy one-liner and expecting us all to accept it as absolute authority.

Now, I may be old fashioned or naive, but I think the PROPER way to convince people of an argument is to address their concerns. If you provide evidence that they call into question or don't understand, you guide them through it and demonstrate how your evidence relates to your argument.

[Shogoki]

Because in most crimes, rehabilitation has been effective. Illegal immigration has yet to respond to any deterrent so far proposed. And since Mexico's own government appears to be encouraging the crime rather than deterring it, they're accessories in it. The best way to deter them from continued complicity in the crime is to create both severe personal negative incentive for individual commissions of the crime and negative incentive against which Mexico's government would have to either openly declare war or finally take effective action to prevent their citizens from committing the crime and being tried.

I know it's hard for bigots to understand that not every country outside the US is a police goverment, but anyway, here's something from the mexican constitution:

Every person has the right to enter the Republic, leave it, travel through its territory, and change his or her residence without the necessity of an identification card, passport, safe conduct pass, or similar item.

Mexican citizens have the right to leave the country at will, just like US citizens do.

[Darth Wong]

And logical argument, as I told SirNitram, doesn't include trying to just dismiss information because you don't respect the source.

Wrong. You don't dismiss a logical argument based on the credibility of the source, but you can dismiss a factual claim if it comes from a non-credible source. Are you honestly so fucking dense that you don't recognize the difference between an argument and a claim?

I suppose if a blogger posited that 2 + 2 = 4 it would revolutionize your view of mathematics.

Nice false analogy.

[Tiriol]

Alright Mal, I'm gonna lay it all out for you really straight and simple. First off, you're wrong about Mexico 'invading' the states. Demographic takeover really only translates down to you being a xenophobic racist fuck.

Wrong. Demographic takeover really translates to numbers of non-citizens occupying U.S. territory.

Occupying..? There's an army on the US soil that does not belong to the USA? Funny that I haven't seen any news concerning this.

I know that he is not talking about a military occupation (I think), but the words he uses do give an appereance of it: takeover, non-citizens occupying US territory...

Man, those Mexicans are really scary, since they invade and occupy US territories and the goverment and the army do nothing.

(Sorry for the little interruption, but that's how a non-native English speaker happened to view that sentence. /end of useless comment)

[brianeyci]

I know that he is not talking about a military occupation (I think)

Actually he is talking about a military occupation. His logic goes the Mexican government is aiding illegal immigrants and killing US Border patrol, and helping illegal immigrants get into the country. Ergo it is an invasion.

It's pretty funny isn't it. That's what happens when you view the world in you're with us or you're with the terrorist terms, black and white.

Brian

[Surlethe]

Occupying..? There's an army on the US soil that does not belong to the USA? Funny that I haven't seen any news concerning this.

I know that he is not talking about a military occupation (I think), but the words he uses do give an appereance of it: takeover, non-citizens occupying US territory...

Man, those Mexicans are really scary, since they invade and occupy US territories and the goverment and the army do nothing.

(Sorry for the little interruption, but that's how a non-native English speaker happened to view that sentence. /end of useless comment)

Actually, that's how native English speakers (whose names aren't Mal_Reynolds) see his rhetoric as well. He's purposefully employing military terminology in an attempt to coat his untenable position with a veneer of reasonability by portraying Mexico as a belligerent national security problem for the United States. It's the whole point of his equivocation: to get across the notion that the United States is already at war with Mexico, and so summary executions, counterinvasion, etc., are perfectly justified.

[Grasscutter]

Alright Mal, I'm gonna lay it all out for you really straight and simple. First off, you're wrong about Mexico 'invading' the states. Demographic takeover really only translates down to you being a xenophobic racist fuck.

Wrong. Demographic takeover really translates to numbers of non-citizens occupying U.S. territory.

Occupying..? There's an army on the US soil that does not belong to the USA? Funny that I haven't seen any news concerning this.

I know that he is not talking about a military occupation (I think), but the words he uses do give an appereance of it: takeover, non-citizens occupying US territory...

Man, those Mexicans are really scary, since they invade and occupy US territories and the goverment and the army do nothing.

(Sorry for the little interruption, but that's how a non-native English speaker happened to view that sentence. /end of useless comment)

No need to apologize. His language reveals him as an ultra-nationalist xenophobe with no respect for human life. And in the off chance that Mal here ISN'T a troll and actually responds to this: Mal, you're arguing that the U.S. should kill civillians trying to cross our border illegally. You say that you'd support this policy regardless of the immigrant's country of origin. Fine then, you're not racist. But that doesn't change the fact that you are placing more value on the lives of Americans higher than the lives of people from other countries. So much more value, in fact, that you have no qualms about killing unarmed foreign nationals. That makes you an ultra-nationalist xenophobe with no respect for human life.

[Shogoki]

Well, this has been amusing -- but I just received a PM threatening me with banning unless I concede. That's not logical argument, that's pure bullying. From what I saw looking around this site before joining, I was struck by this being a place where a logical argument could be made on its rational merit, not on its emotional palatability, and not on questions of political correctness.

Your "logical" argument says the US needs to go to war and commit genocide against Mexico, one of allies and top trading partners, to improve it's economical stance. Last thing i knew cutting one of your own economy's limbs off followed by an uterly unwinnable war is not logical, it's retarded.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Wow you're a dumbass, demographic takeover is a racist terminology used by white supremacists.

So fucking what? Does that somehow magically make the term inaccurate all by itself?

Either you're ignorant of the term or you're deliberately lying.

They're taking over neighborhoods, and in the case of Maywood, CA, damn near a whole town. They're doing it through demographics. Gosh, I guess that makes it demographic takeover, now doesn't it?

Kind of like how creationists want it called intelligent design or teaching the controversy... take off the wrapper and it's all about race.

No, it's all about crime and punishment. It has been from the beginning. You want it to be about race so you don't have to deal with what it's really about.

Citizens of another country can't vote legally in an election so there is no takeover by illegal aliens.

Maywood, CA comes to mind as an applicable example here, too. Did you know the cops there disbanded DUI checkpoints because they were catching "too many illegals" with them?

[Zero]

Mal, you do realize that the whole concept of a demographic takeover is ludicrous in reference to illegal immigrants, since illegal immigrants wield no political power. There's no takeover, just a demographic shift, since illegals don't have any power in the states. What would they be taking over?

[Mal_Reynolds]

And logical argument, as I told SirNitram, doesn't include trying to just dismiss information because you don't respect the source.

Wrong. You don't dismiss a logical argument based on the credibility of the source, but you can dismiss a factual claim if it comes from a non-credible source.

Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."
A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:

"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."
This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.

Read it. Fucking. Weep.

Are you honestly so fucking dense that you don't recognize the difference between an argument and a claim?

I do recognize the difference -- however, the difference in the case of ad hominem is fucking irrelevant.

I suppose if a blogger posited that 2 + 2 = 4 it would revolutionize your view of mathematics.

Nice false analogy.

Not at all. Not remotely. The source reprints historical facts. SirNitram dismisses the source solely as a means of avoiding acknowledgement of the historical facts it presents. Your analogy replaces Wikipedia with bloggers as the dismissed source. To accurize the analogy, the dismissed source presents acknowledged facts. The analogy holds.

[FSTargetDrone]

And he's still NOT answered the questions of whether to not he wishes to apply his insane policy of 2 strikes and you're dead to minors, the old, infirm, and the like.

[Zero]

*snip bullshit about ad hominem*

Nitram didn't claim it was necessarily wrong, he just said that the source wasn't credible, which wikipedia isn't. Anyone can post on wikipedia. This unreliability was the main driving force behind the joke encyclopedia uncyclopedia. Wikipedia is well-known as an unreliable source of information, so saying that claims made by it aren't adequate evidence is a perfectly valid claim.

Besides, each of the wars listed in that bit about undeclared war has no relation whatsoever to your insane policy reguarding executing immigrants, since none of those wars bear any resemblences to Mexico's dealings with the US, so really, even if Nitram had pulled an ad hominem, you'd still be wrong.

[Mal_Reynolds]

Mal, you do realize that the whole concept of a demographic takeover is ludicrous in reference to illegal immigrants, since illegal immigrants wield no political power.

..."We are pioneers. We might as well be in covered wagons because 10 years from now, this state is brown,'' said Rep. William Delgado (D-Chicago). "We all want the same thing: hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet. Teach us the wonderful values that you, that community that might have been 80 percent Irish at one time, have." -- Chicago Sun-Times - April 27, 2003

"Oh, I know there's some voices who want to wall us off from Mexico"...."...it's so important for us to tear down barriers and walls that might separate Mexico from the U.S." -- George W. Bush before Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Albuquerque, NM, 8/15/01

"Remember 187 (proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non citizens) was the last gasp of white America in California." -- Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party

"In recent years a new International System has been developing, oriented toward the establishment of norms and principles of universal jurisdiction, above national sovereignty, in the areas of what is called the New Agenda...we have to confront ..... what I dare to call the Anglo-Saxon prejudice against the establishment of supra-national organizations." -- Vicente Fox, to Club XXI, Hotel Eurobuilding, Madrid, Spain 5/16/02

"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important - a very important - part of this." -- Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, Chicago on July 23, 1997.

"California is going to be a Hispanic state, and anyone who doesn't like it should leave. They should go back to Europe." -- Mario Obledo, co-founder and President of MALDEF, 1968 to 1973; President of the League of United Latin American Citizens 1983-85, California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare 1975-82, awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton Obledo announced that he would burn the CCIR's "illegal immigration" billboard on 6/27/98, it was subsequently taken down

"We are practicing La Reconquista in California." -- Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General

"They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over. . We are here to stay." -- Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council

[Mal_Reynolds]

*snip bullshit about ad hominem*

Nitram didn't claim it was necessarily wrong, he just said that the source wasn't credible, which wikipedia isn't.

If that's true, then it wasn't an ad hominem. It was a red herring.

[Mal_Reynolds]

And he's still NOT answered the questions of whether to not he wishes to apply his insane policy of 2 strikes and you're dead to minors, the old, infirm, and the like.

Unaccompanied minors, the elderly and the infirm are probably not the ones coming via coyote.