Quote from: mdgiles on August 12, 2014, 05:56:17 AM
I'll explain, as soon as you do, on how children are going to work.

So by that logic, we should just kick orphans out of our country, because they aren't going to have any immediate benefit to our gross domestic product?      Or are those orphans magically more valuable humans because they were born within our borders by random coincidence?

Do you realize how stupid it is to blame and hate children for not following sophisticated immigration laws when their lives are at mortal risk and they are living in abject poverty?  Why don't we go ahead and deport every American child that breaks the law, you know, in far more serious ways than violating immigration policy?  We let children who assault others stay, so long as they by random probability were expelled from their mother's birth canal within our geographic delineations, but we ruthlessly hunt down children who don't give up their lives and their families in glorious selfless devotion to the American Immigration Law?   

Quote
  You mean like the secular humanist who used to run the old "Peoples Democracies".

You obviously don't know what "humanist" stands for.  The human rights organizations most vocal in actually working against those dictatorships are predominantly liberal humanists.  Conservatives are virtually nonexistent in such movements; you're just interested in bombing their people.

Quote
Why they had a wonderful record on civil rights.

We do, if you're talking about actual secular humanists and not your imaginary enemies.  We've consistently been in favor of civil rights for all different sorts of demographics.  A reinterpretation of our concept of human rights, which has been necessary for our progress numerous times in our history, is progressive by definition, and defense of the status quo, whether that be slavery or theocracy, is conservative by definition.  I don't know why you can't use words for their real definitions. 

Quote
And if your talking about the Civil Rights movement in this country, maybe you're simply too freaking stupid to know how many of the old Civil Rights leaders were ministers and church leaders.

Nice try.  I never said religious people were never right.  I said that secular humanists often were.  Logic never was your strong suit, but really, bringing church ministers into this out of the blue was bizarre, even for you.

Quote
Hit a nerve did I? Perhaps it's because, it's finally dawned on you that forcing the citizens of this country to support ever A-hole who wanders over our borders IS little better than slavery.

Did you just claim that "forced support", as in, committing 1% of your annual income, to supporting undocumented children (or "every A-hole") is proportional in harm to being forced to commit 100% of your non-existent income and forfeiting all of your human rights and autonomy for perpetual hard labor?  Again, do you even realize just how absurd these comments are?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 13, 2014, 07:09:40 PM
So by that logic, we should just kick orphans out of our country, because they aren't going to have any immediate benefit to our gross domestic product?      Or are those orphans magically more valuable humans because they were born within our borders by random coincidence?

Do you realize how stupid it is to blame and hate children for not following sophisticated immigration laws when their lives are at mortal risk and they are living in abject poverty?  Why don't we go ahead and deport every American child that breaks the law, you know, in far more serious ways than violating immigration policy?  We let children who assault others stay, so long as they by random probability were expelled from their mother's birth canal within our geographic delineations, but we ruthlessly hunt down children who don't give up their lives and their families in glorious selfless devotion to the American Immigration Law?   

You obviously don't know what "humanist" stands for.  The human rights organizations most vocal in actually working against those dictatorships are predominantly liberal humanists.  Conservatives are virtually nonexistent in such movements; you're just interested in bombing their people.

We do, if you're talking about actual secular humanists and not your imaginary enemies.  We've consistently been in favor of civil rights for all different sorts of demographics.  A reinterpretation of our concept of human rights, which has been necessary for our progress numerous times in our history, is progressive by definition, and defense of the status quo, whether that be slavery or theocracy, is conservative by definition.  I don't know why you can't use words for their real definitions. 

Nice try.  I never said religious people were never right.  I said that secular humanists often were.  Logic never was your strong suit, but really, bringing church ministers into this out of the blue was bizarre, even for you.

Did you just claim that "forced support", as in, committing 1% of your annual income, to supporting undocumented children (or "every A-hole") is proportional in harm to being forced to commit 100% of your non-existent income and forfeiting all of your human rights and autonomy for perpetual hard labor?  Again, do you even realize just how absurd these comments are?

Will you answer a question for me?


Oh wait you can't. My bad