Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
My thoughts on a "Dreamer" compromise
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3075497" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>No, that's not what I said. Way to put words in my mouth, though. As an aside, you might find this article interesting: <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/?utm_source=twb" target="_blank">https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/?utm_source=twb</a></p><p>It's about how a hostile interviewer completely misrepresented what her guest said, then argued with her own (erroneous) straw man instead of actually addressing the subtleties of the guest's careful, limited statements. You'll like it; the guest was a conservative, and the interviewer decidedly not, so you'll be able to hang your hat on the "evil librul media" angle.</p><p></p><p>As to Dr. HK's example, no, it is <em>not</em> the "exact same argument." In his example, you have a tangible asset that can easily be disgorged from the improper possessor and returned to the rightful owner. In the case of a person, though, where the "asset" is presence here in the country, a job, a place in society...how do you take those away? How do you give them to the "rightful" owner? How do you even know <em>who</em> the rightful owner is? Say José Doe is holding a job that "should" go to a citizen? <em>Which</em> citizen? Fred or Mike (or Mary, or Sue, or Bob, or Sheila)? Not so easy to "give it back" as it was with the money, is it? How do you distribute the social network, the professional connections, the personal capital José has amassed (some of which he will have created through his own effort)? Intangible assets don't work that way; you can't just take them away from the wrongful possessor and give them to the rightful owner to make the latter whole.</p><p></p><p>Even at that, there comes a point when we accept that the conversion is sufficiently remote in time as to be attenuated. If you want to talk about stolen opportunities, what about slaves? The assets they <em>should</em> have accrued during a free life would have passed as inheritance to their children, and we our forefathers' benefited unjustly from their slaves' labor, but we decry the idea of reparations as being too remote in time. What about the land grabs displacing the native peoples, the repeated repudiation of treaties, the mishandling of Indian trust assets? There's a heck of a lot of unjust enrichment, and land is something that <em>can</em> be returned. How far do you want to take that "give it back" philosophy? No, I'm not arguing in favor of reparations, but you should really think carefully about the precedents you propose to establish.</p><p></p><p>In any event, I did not say anything even remotely like "the kids mentioned a few post back should keep the stolen money they've grown accustomed to." In point of fact, I specifically disclaimed that. Here, for your benefit, is what I said: "I'm not saying they shouldn't be held to the law." See how those two are different? You put words in my mouth, "restat[ing] what <em> purportedly said so as to make it seem as if [my] view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd." If I didn't know better, I'd think you were practicing for a career as a "librul media" anchor.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Again, just something to ponder.</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3075497, member: 13624"] No, that's not what I said. Way to put words in my mouth, though. As an aside, you might find this article interesting: [URL]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/?utm_source=twb[/URL] It's about how a hostile interviewer completely misrepresented what her guest said, then argued with her own (erroneous) straw man instead of actually addressing the subtleties of the guest's careful, limited statements. You'll like it; the guest was a conservative, and the interviewer decidedly not, so you'll be able to hang your hat on the "evil librul media" angle. As to Dr. HK's example, no, it is [I]not[/I] the "exact same argument." In his example, you have a tangible asset that can easily be disgorged from the improper possessor and returned to the rightful owner. In the case of a person, though, where the "asset" is presence here in the country, a job, a place in society...how do you take those away? How do you give them to the "rightful" owner? How do you even know [I]who[/I] the rightful owner is? Say José Doe is holding a job that "should" go to a citizen? [I]Which[/I] citizen? Fred or Mike (or Mary, or Sue, or Bob, or Sheila)? Not so easy to "give it back" as it was with the money, is it? How do you distribute the social network, the professional connections, the personal capital José has amassed (some of which he will have created through his own effort)? Intangible assets don't work that way; you can't just take them away from the wrongful possessor and give them to the rightful owner to make the latter whole. Even at that, there comes a point when we accept that the conversion is sufficiently remote in time as to be attenuated. If you want to talk about stolen opportunities, what about slaves? The assets they [I]should[/I] have accrued during a free life would have passed as inheritance to their children, and we our forefathers' benefited unjustly from their slaves' labor, but we decry the idea of reparations as being too remote in time. What about the land grabs displacing the native peoples, the repeated repudiation of treaties, the mishandling of Indian trust assets? There's a heck of a lot of unjust enrichment, and land is something that [I]can[/I] be returned. How far do you want to take that "give it back" philosophy? No, I'm not arguing in favor of reparations, but you should really think carefully about the precedents you propose to establish. In any event, I did not say anything even remotely like "the kids mentioned a few post back should keep the stolen money they've grown accustomed to." In point of fact, I specifically disclaimed that. Here, for your benefit, is what I said: "I'm not saying they shouldn't be held to the law." See how those two are different? You put words in my mouth, "restat[ing] what [I] purportedly said so as to make it seem as if [my] view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd." If I didn't know better, I'd think you were practicing for a career as a "librul media" anchor. Again, just something to ponder.[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
My thoughts on a "Dreamer" compromise
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom