In two separate posts at Dan's blog (here and here), each discussion disintegrated into the usual diversionary accusations by Dan regarding things like "reality", "delusion" and "opinion versus fact".
Beginning with the third diversion...opinion versus fact...Dan determines to avoid dealing with points raised about Scripture with this favorite tactic. If Dan disagrees with a point, regardless of how supported a point may be through citing Scripture, interpretations over the centuries by scholars, detailed studies of the original languages, etc...we mustn't regard our agreement with all of this as "fact". Without an actual visit by God, complete with state ID so we know it's really Him, wherein He testifies that, yes, He really did mean what all that thousands of years of translations, interpretations, tradition and understanding verifies for us, it simply isn't a fact, according to Dan, but only "human opinion". And to Dan, we've proven we can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.
But despite my asking, Dan has yet to explain why opinion is NEVER also fact. This is not to equate the two, as "opinion" and "fact" are clearly not synonymous. But Dan seems to believe that an opinion can never also be fact at the same time. Here's the problem: Dan dismisses, say, a young earth because according to Dan, the science has "proven" that the earth is very old. Actually, it does not. Scientific interpretation of available data, minus any consideration for the supernatural, only suggests an old earth. That is, Dan takes as fact that which is only truly opinion. It doesn't even matter that evidence may seem overwhelmingly in favor of an old earth. It is still only opinion as we cannot prove beyond any doubt that the earth is as old as Dan believes it is. As such, Dan is guilty of the very "sin" of which he accuses his debate opponents. (This particular issue...old earth, young earth...is one Dan likes to bring up to make his point. I've never taken a position on which I believe to be true because it can't be proved without going back in time. But he uses it to pretend his point is solid. Rarely are our differences on issues of this type.)
More importantly is that the question of opinion versus fact in Dan's argument depends upon one agreeing with Dan that what is seen as a fact is really an opinion, simply because Dan doesn't like the fact. That is, he insists it is only an opinion because he doesn't like the fact and he rejects all evidences submitted to support the point as fact. In doing so, he provides himself cover from the obligation to either defend his own position to the end, or demonstrate the other position is wrong. Indeed, he plays this card when he finds his position has been exposed as incredibly shaky. I would much prefer that Dan drop this diversionary tactic and put in the effort required to, not only make his case, but to defend it against all the objections, criticisms and questions his positions always provoke. He cannot, so he plays the "just your opinion" card and disparages his opponent should he not cave to Dan's insistence that it can be nothing more.
"Reality" and "delusion" are actually the same charge Dan levels at his opponents who will "not see reason" as Dan perceives it. And this is another diversionary tactic Dan employs to free him from responding to specific criticisms and questions, or when Dan's criticisms of opponent arguments fail. One is unable to grasp reality or is delusional if they disagree with Dan and refuse to abide Dan's rules for determining what is reality and delusion. It is notable that these rules favor Dan exclusively and are thus an insurmountable hurdle that protects him from accepting the errors in his own reasoning, or even facing the possibility that errors exist at all. He covers himself by "admitting" that he's only putting forth opinion, but he treats them as fact. His "opinion" defense also allows him to wallow in his own delusion about the strength of his position. What he fails to grasp is that reality and delusion are no more than opinion to him, but opinion he demands we accept as fact. This irony is totally lost on him, but again, it is his shield against the obvious criticisms of his positions. Only Dan is the authority on what is reality and what is delusion. Conveniently, as I stated, this always puts Dan in the driver's seat and he won't start the car until one agrees with the road upon which we will travel in our discourse. While we wish to take the road to truth, Dan insists we take the road to what he wants truth to look like.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
70 comments:
One thought. Regarding Dan’s position on old earth. As you point out, science doesn’t “prove” what he wants it to prove. But more than that, is the fact that science does support the underlying creation narrative. That there was a singular point where everything this is came to be. Now there is plenty of mental gymnastics and appeals to aliens in order to avoid the philosophical implications of the Big Bang, but there are plenty of scientists who agree that cosmology is consistent with the biblical creation narrative.
There was a poster in my boss's office at my prior job. It said, "'I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.' - George Bernard Shaw" You may have perfectly good logic and perfectly valid evidence and all of church history behind you, but I think Dan likes it when you wrestle with him on these things.
I will point out, only for the benefit of others who may read this, that of course, you do not even understand my positions or what I've said. You're beating to death a strawman. I have reached the conclusion that you all are just not able to understand my actual words and points (giving doubt as to how well you might understand other written words) and so, I bear you no ill will.
But no amount of clarifying or explaining or pointing out that, "No, that's not what I said, not what I mean, not a correct summation of my points" has ever fixed that, so, I merely point out the fact that you have misstated my actual arguments and don't appear to understand them.
Good luck.
It also seems as though Dan uses the term “reality” as a way around using the term objective. It’s a way for him to make objective claims without having to prove them, because they’re simply “reality”.
Funny how just about all of us have come to the same conclusion about what Dan says, but it is US who misunderstand what he is saying. Yet, he will never clarify what our misunderstanding is. He is indeed a pig, which is why he has been banned from my blog and so many others.
Does it never cross your minds, dear men, that I might actually KNOW what I mean?
And that when I say, "That isn't what I said or what I believe..." that I'm in a better position to know that this is the fact?
And that when people who aren't more fundamentalist in nature read my writings and your questions, that they are puzzled by your responses? Since clearly, I'm NOT saying what you are reading into my words and your responses and attacks are nonsensical?
Can you open your minds even that much to recognize how irrational this is, your insistence that somehow, when OTHERS can read my words and not be confused, that it's MY fault that you aren't understanding them?
But I do get it, I guess, no matter how much I point out the obvious, you all simply don't understand, for whatever reason. So be it.
Good luck, men.
~Dan
Everyone else in the world is wrong, and Dan is right.
It might help, Dan, if you could persuade one or two of these "people who aren't more fundamentalist in nature" to visit your blog to join the discussions. Perhaps one of them might actually be able to articulate your positions better than you do to provide the clarity and understanding we've been seeking all these years. I would consider it a blessing and would welcome other voices to serve that end. Perhaps they wouldn't waste so much time with accusing us of delusions and failing to grasp reality and instead focus on those criticisms and questions to bring about the enlightenment you refuse to provide. Perhaps they won't waste time trying to get us to admit to irrelevant demands about the difference between opinion and fact and simply present evidence that supports your "opinion" or refutes ours. Perhaps they'd actually engage rather than try to dictate how to engage so as to force compliance rather than to persuade through actual reason.
Marshall, you can resolve this yourself. Just ask any trusted Progressive friend of yours explain to you what I mean.
They can read that what I'm saying is...
about those things which we cannot prove and are not provable, we can have subjective opinions but we cannot know as a fact.
So, if someone reads the Bible and reaches the conclusion,
"I think that this is teaching the concept of inerrancy and that God wants us to treat the Bible as if it is inerrant..."
...that this is a subjective human opinion, not an established fact. Just by the nature of what they're doing. Have any trusted liberal friend of yours read that and they can explain it to you if you're not understanding it.
Dan
Because all progressives will understand Dan, and can speak for him.
Of course every time I try this exercise, my liberal friends are convinced that Dan’s hunches are just as nutty as we do.
That’s just the reality.
I've had the same reaction from a guy who I would call one of my most trusted progressive (forgive me for not capitalizing) friends. This particular guy and I go back to first grade. Another "trusted" lefty friend is an atheist, so I don't think he'd care about matters pertaining to the inerrant character of Scripture.
But either of these two would very possibly share my concern over this:
"They can read that what I'm saying is...
about those things which we cannot prove and are not provable, we can have subjective opinions but we cannot know as a fact"
This is a rather moot point on its face, and to continue whining about the point is no more than another deflection. The real problem is Dan throwing this out regardless of whether or not a point is provable, but rather as a means by which he can avoid defending a position. I don't need to hear this every time a point is in dispute. I need to hear the case made. Dan doesn't want to make a case. He wants to cling to his preferred belief regardless of what evidence exists or how powerful and compelling it might be. He likes what he believes. It doesn't need to be true or provable.
It’s just about accepting reality.
Art, I want you to notice what’s happened. Dan ventured out of his cave long enough to troll a couple of posts, then promptly posted a couple of “intentionally” provocative posts and we ended up back in his cave where he’s able to exert control.
God loves immigrants. We should, too.
Very provocative stuff, that.
Thanks for the laugh, even if unintentional.
Dan
God loves everyone, not provocative. Dan speaking for God, provocative. Dan editing scripture, provocative. Dan infrequently venturing out of his safe space, and scampering back when things get difficult, the new normal.
God also says we are to obey the laws of the land, so immigrants who come here illegally are sinning against God.
That point has been addressed, Glenn.
What I find ironic about Dan's most recent comments is how he smears Trump for allegedly attacking all immigrants as rapists, criminals, etc., while at the same time, Dan considers all immigrants as needy refugees escaping rapists and criminals.
Glenn, I'm sure you're just as delusional/confused/just plain ignorant as these other two and so, I'm trying to be merciful here in respect to your ignorance, but trying to escape oppression or starvation is NOT a crime, and should not be. Not against God, not against anyone.
A nation that criminalizes those who are thus trying to seek refuge are the ones who sin against God, I'd suggest. While I can't prove it (nor can you prove your evil hunch), I think you are clearly wrong and one day, you'll see this.
May God have mercy on you gentlemen and, in the meantime, if you should ever need to seek refuge, may you never be greeted by people who believe as you do.
Lord God, have mercy.
Dan considers all immigrants as needy refugees escaping rapists and criminals.
Of course, I never said that.
I'll repeat those four words so maybe you can understand my point:
I NEVER SAID THAT.
Understand?
OF COURSE, not all immigrants are needy refugees. However, a great number of them are.
I am not talking about, for instance, the millionaire from Saudi Arabia who wants to move here to try to get free healthcare, or whatever. I'm not talking about the Swede with a huge bank account who has decided he would like to live in Montana.
I'm talking about the HUGE number of people, according to the available data, who ARE escaping oppression, starvation, rape, theft and murder. To turn away THOSE people should be a crime and, I think one day you'll find, IS a crime of the worst sort, in God's eyes.
Disagree if you must, but I think one day you'll find you were wrong, if so.
Ah, the reason Dan rarely ventured out of his safe space comes out as he starts deleting.
Once again, Dan assumes that all of these “needy” refugees should be allowed to enter the US with no barriers, but also that they are all being prevented from doing so.
It sucks when you can’t prove your claims.
Trabue,
The vast majority of the illegal immigrants are just looking for a better life. TOUGH. Come here legally. God did not say to disobey laws if you feel like it. But then, you don't care about God's laws, you just care about what feels good and makes other people feel good: illegal immigration, homosexuality, abortion. Did you know it is a crime in God's eyes to disobey the laws of the land unless the laws for you to sin against God? (Acts 5:29). There is no caveat for hunger or poverty, etc. There are legal ways to immigrate for actual refugees. That isn't what is crossing our border.
But you know that and don't care because you are an anti-God radical LEFTIST who hates this nation and everything it stands for.
Are you serious? Are you unaware of the data about people being turned away when they're seeking refuge from harm? Are you unaware of the stories being told every day?
Maybe that's the problem. May you're just ignorant of the problem or the scope of the problem. I've posted some of the data before... The data is out there. Look it up. The stories are out there. I hear them first hand.
Bury your head in the sand or learn about those who are being turned away in their plight to seek refuge from harm, that's up to you.
God did not say to disobey laws if you feel like it.
We should disobey immoral laws. We WILL disobey immoral laws, we who are concerned about justice. "We must obey God, rather than men," someone with some intestinal fortitude once said.
Glenn, I could name, I'm certain, two dozen or more families who are friends or friends of friends who literally were escaping harm and/or starvation in other nations and who literally TRIED to jump through the necessary hoops and who literally were turned away, forced back to their dangerous situations they were fleeing.
Forget everything else, just look at THOSE two dozen families. What would YOU advise them to do? Any of you.
Would you seriously say, "Tough luck, but you gots to obey the law, go back home where the rapist will rape your daughter and your son will likely be killed..."?
If so, what sort of moral monsters are you?
Do you not understand how monstrously evil such a response would be?
Before you say, "well, I would just help them go through the system the RIGHT way, that's what I'd do...' stop. Don't be a patronizing simpleton. Do you not think that we have not already thought of that, tried it, got lawyers to help in the process and STILL ended up with the same answer, "You have to go home..."? Of course these folk have tried these steps. No one lightly says, "you know what I'll do for fun? Leave my homeland and family and try to sneak in across a desert heat and possible threats to my life just to illegally break the law in the US so I can flaunt their laws just for fun!!" That is a fantasy invented by fear-mongers and hateful racists, not reality.
God loves immigrants. God tells us to side with the oppressed and those seeking refuge. That is where we find the stories of God, on the side of the immigrants seeking refuge.
The question is: Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on?
I’m in the side where you don’t delete my comments on the topic and tell blatant lies.
I guess that whole thing about liars doesn’t count when it comes to you.
God does tell us to love and side with immigrants. He doesn’t tell us that the only possible option in unfettered immigration into the US. According to your previous positions He doesn’t tell us that we have to do anything. He certainly doesn’t tell us we should impose your religious beliefs on the secular government.
He does tell us about bearing false witness, but you’ve chosen not to follow that fallible human interpretation. Oh, you keep referring to God telling us, exactly how does He do that?
Three comments in a row, in one thread where Dan blatantly lies about what I’ve said.
In the other, he’s trying very hard to ignore my asking for the quotes to prove the accuracy of a claim he made.
In the same way, Trump is not talking about immigrants who come to our country according to the law, or immigrants who come to become Americans and help make our nation great...he's not talking about such people when he refers those criminals and rapists entering our country, yet you insist as much. You might want to keep in mind how you object to having your words distorted when you choose to distort Trump's.
The above was in response to your comment:
"OF COURSE, not all immigrants are needy refugees. However, a great number of them are."
I thought I pasted in previous to my response. Guess I didn't. Carry on.
Trabue, the guy who has decided that same-sex fake marriage and abortion are moral, puts himself as the one to declare whether laws are moral or immoral.
God didn't say disobey laws you feel are immoral -- He said obey the laws as long as they don't conflict with HIS laws. Even keeping out bonafide refugees is not against God's laws.
God doesn't love immigrants any more than he loves those who are already here. And those who come here illegally are violating GOD'S laws!
So, that means you'd cooperate with the Nazis, Glenn? Because, they had laws on their side.
OF COURSE we should disobey immoral laws! Don't be monsters, sirs.
I'm sorry I can't help you all understand that.
Good luck, sirs.
~Dan
And really, I'm trying to be patient with people with apparent limited moral reasoning and understanding of reality, but to hell with the suggestions you make, Glenn. Those are demon-spawned, God-damned arguments on behalf of evil.
Don't embrace evil. Read the bible. Embrace grace.
~Dan
Given Dan’s recent actions, it’s clear that he has no foundation to lecture anyone on grace.
Once again, Dan, you expect us to rely on you for determining all that is moral, rational and what is reality. On what basis other than your insistence that we do should we agree that you're expert on any of these things?
I don't see "reason", "grace" or "morality" in daring to compare the laws of Nazi Germany with our immigration laws. It seems clear that you determine morality by whether or not those you deem worthy are allowed to stay in our country, without any mention of why ICE didn't feel they were in compliance with the law. We're simply supposed to take the word of the illegals, their lawyers and you that our gov't is simply rejecting their pleas willy-nilly.
Trabue,
Again, if the law requires you to go against God, then you do not obey it. Not all of Nazi laws went against God's laws, they were just socialist.
You make subjective judgments as to what is moral or immoral, so YOU don't have the right to tell us what is or isn't moral or immoral. My laws are God's laws.
You need to read the Bible for what it REALLY say by the real GOD and JESUS WE worship, not the made up immoral god and Jesus you worship,
Art, you mean you’d appreciate some proof of Dan’s claims? Not just anecdotes about some unidentified “friends”.
It’s interesting, all the immigrants I personally know who have immigrated because of personal danger, haven’t had problems doing so legally.
The one that sticks out is a guy who had a Fatwa against him (only the religion of peace would think of that) for evangelizing Muslims.
I think a line should be drawn between those who have difficulty in their lives, and those in legitimate immenent danger. I also think there is a line between removing them from that danger and providing succor as needed, and an unfettered welcome to the US here’s a bunch of free stuff. Maybe, it’s the difference between focusing on individuals farther than groups. It’s easy and lazy to lump immigrants into large amorphous groups with a one size fits all approach, but that approach hasn’t done well in Europe.
Dang. Fortunately for the world, we have you to tell us what God wants!
Dan
The point I was making, Glenn, is that we are OBLIGED to disobey IMMORAL, EVIL laws. If someone creates a law that says you have to turn in refugees, no matter what their circumstances, and they will be imprisoned or deported back to where they may be killed, that THIS is an immoral law and we are OBLIGED, as moral people - as Christians, if we want to be moral people - to disobey that law.
On the point I was actually making, are you actually disagreeing, or are we in agreement that moral people are obliged to disobey immoral, oppressive laws?
all the immigrants I personally know who have immigrated because of personal danger, haven’t had problems doing so legally.
So, because all the people YOU PERSONALLY know have been able to get in, therefore, the experiences of others didn't really happen? Or do you recognize that your experiences are not all-encompassing?
Really, I’m the one who just grandiosely attributed his paraphrase of another author’s work directly to God. I must have missed doing that.
You’d know that I wasn’t saying that, because I didn’t use words that mean what you wanted them to mean. I was merely pointing out that your use of selective anecdotes in an attempt to prove a point about the whole system was flawed.
I’ve never suggested my experience is all encompassing and I’m not suggesting that changes be made to our immigration system based on my anecdotal experience. I’m pointing out that you arguing for massive change in the immigration system based on your small sample size of personal anecdotes is a ridiculous premise.
I’m also pointing out the reality that, in point of actual fact, refugees who are in immanent danger are offered legal pathways to gain refuge under the current system.
But, if it helps you to project then go right ahead. It’s just amazing how vehemently you fight against your very own arguments when they get used against you.
I’m pointing out that you arguing for massive change in the immigration system based on your small sample size of personal anecdotes is a ridiculous premise.
So, if only 100 people were being deported back to their deaths, and an additional 75 girls back to be raped, it's not worth changing our system?
Or what if it were 1000 back to slowly starve but only 50 girls back to be raped, but then 10 were killed after being raped?
What number is not a large enough number to worry about changing the system?
Myself, I think if there are only ten people being sent back to then be harmed, that's enough to warrant change.
And I personally know of more than ten people whose lives will be threatened.
BEYOND all of that, I'm talking about basic human rights. One recognized human right is the freedom to move from here to there. If I live in Kentucky and just for the hell of it, I want to move to Indiana, and the gov't tells me NO... I say screw that gov't. It is an oppressive gov't and an oppressive rule. What the hell right does any gov't have to tell me I can't move from where I am to 20 miles away?
I think immigration laws need to be changed fundamentally because they are fundamentally flawed from a human rights point of view. If l live in point A and want to move to point B (and given that I'm not talking about moving into an off limits place, like someone else's house or a nuclear silo...), then I should have the right to do so.
I'm talking about human liberty.
And add TO that, if I want to move from point A to point B because point A is not safe for me or my children... or if point A has no work for me to engage in... or if point A has an oppressive regime that imprisons people like me or my children, then of course, I should move from point A to somewhere else safe and secure. It would be immoral to suggest otherwise.
If that helps you to understand my point.
Things would be so much more productive, if you would just deal with what I’ve said and not embellish it or recast it as something else.
It was a question, meant to glean some clarity. I'm sorry if you didn't understand that.
We are clear, now. YOUR experiences don't mean that no one else has experienced something else. That's fine.
What my friends and acquaintances have experienced is something different. THEIR experiences demonstrate that there are actual dangers in arresting people and shipping them back.
The question then becomes, GIVEN that there are some people harmed by these policies, and GIVEN that people SHOULD have the right to free movement, Isn't it time to change these policies?
Or, are we okay with punishing people to rape, death, imprisonment and oppression by sending them back to face these things.
I'm not okay with it.
You gentlemen?
~Dan
Yes Dan your point has been clear and you want to fundamentally dismantle and illuminate much of our current immigration law based on a small sample size of anecdotal evidence. That much has been clear since long before you were even willing to admit that that was your goal. My point is and continues to be, that making policy based on anything but individual consideration of individual cases is a flawed way to make immigration policy. It’s just as flawed as demanding that the borders be thrown open and I’ll comers come in based on a small sample size of anecdotal evidence Mike with many of your soap boxes, if you were actually making specific policy arguments both for and against specific elements of the current immigration law. If you were offering something more than let them all in. There might be a worthwhile conversation to be had but as long as you you simply throw out emotion driven appeals based on your personal anecdotes it’s virtually impossible to actually have a rational conversation. Just like when you resort to how many young innocent teenage girls are you willing to see raped before you’re willing to do anything. That totally doesn’t represent anything I have actually said, it may or may not actually represent a significant threat, and interestingly enough if it does represent a significant threat that thread exhausts almost entirely in the Islamic world. And yet you’ve been quite forceful in defending Islam and Islam a country is as wonderful places. So, if you want to make one specific Actual policy proposal that you think will solve the problem please do so. I’d be interested to see it. But if all you have to offer is everybody who doesn’t agree with me wants to see teenage girls get raped. Then please give it up it’s juvenile, it’s pointless, and it’s a waste of everyone’s time.
There are two reasons that make me very confident that you’re not really interested in a serious discussion about this.
First, the fact that I have repeated myself multiple times saying that people in immediate danger should be given refuge, and their cases should be dealt with on an individual basis. Even though I keep repeating myself you keep ignoring it and pretending as if I’ve said something else.
Second, because all you can do is keep repeating the fact that you know of 10 anecdotal cases where you’ve been told something, and you believe it to be true. The fact that you are prepared to scrap and replace the entire immigration system based on 10 Anecdotes doesn’t bode well for rational conversation.
So, yes, you're okay with sending SOME number back to their deaths or to rape or imprisonment, rather than changing the existing system to fix that flaw?
Okay, then let's get specific: How many people being sent back to oppression is acceptable to you?
You think the argument is flawed because it IS emotional that people are being sent back to danger? How so?
The Bible speaks of being angry, of fighting for change. Some things are worth getting angry about. I happen to think that people being sent back to face oppression is one of those things.
Do you disagree?
I hope you don't.
ONE specific policy proposal?
Here it is, I'm sorry if it hasn't been clear to you, yet. I've tried to be clear, but one more time:
1. WE. OUGHT. NOT. CRIMINALIZE. CROSSING. THE. BORDER. FOR. THOSE. SEEKING. SAFETY. AND. SECURITY.
If someone has crossed the border and they've said it's because their lives are threatened back home, we ought not send them back unless we can somehow prove that they're safe and secure.
That isn't happening now, and that policy should be changed.
The burden should be on those wanting to deport to prove safety, not the ones seeking refuge to prove threat.
Right now, the president is militarizing our border, trying to act as if those seeking refuge in our nation are somehow a threat... as if they were terrorists or rapists or any of the other nonsense charges he's made.
That is ONE policy proposal, the one I've been speaking of. I hope you understand that now.
And it is NOT juvenile to point out the reality that people lives are threatened. It's adult. It's acting from a compassionate place of seeking justice.
I hope you don't think of seeking justice as "juvenile."
~Dan
The fact that you are prepared to scrap and replace the entire immigration system based on 10 Anecdotes doesn’t bode well for rational conversation.
And the fact that you're willing to call ten people (much more than ten, actually) who you know NOTHING about "liars," and send them back to their deaths or to oppression does not bode well for rational conversation or adult action on behalf of justice.
Or, the fact that you are not informed enough to know that there are many such cases being reported on a regular basis for years and years... that does not bode well for rational and informed adult conversation.
But I get that you don't understand things well and I'm sorry I haven't been able to explain them to you in a way that you can understand.
Good luck, sir.
~Dan
Trabue
Those who come because they are true refugees from danger make up an extreme minority of those crossing our southern borders.
Again, who determines what law is immoral or evil? You certainly don't, because you agree with immoral and evil laws legalizing same-sex fake marriage as well as abortions.
IF someone is indeed in danger if they return, a true refugee -- then it would be against God to send them to be killed or otherwise endangered, just as it was for those who protect the Jews against extermination. I know of know one who wants to turn away TRUE refugees; not even Donald Trump. SO quit raising that straw man.
In the real world, people are being sought and arrested and sent back to dangerous situations. You merely asserting it doesn't happen doesn't make it so.
I am glad to hear you agree that there is a time to disobey laws.
Dan
Trabue,
You can believe what you want about refugees being sent back, but all you have are anecdotes.
And I stated from the very beginning that there is ONE time to disobey laws, and that is if they force you to disobey God's laws (Acts 5:29). The disagreement is your subjective opinion as to what laws are immoral.
I have first hand stories from people affected by these immoral laws. If my friend gets sent back, the gov't there wants them dead. Should I support him in NOT going back? Hell yes. To do otherwise would be immoral.
So, my subjective opinion is not reliable, but your subjective opinion IS?
Dan
Trabue,
Again, your subjective opinion as to what is moral/immoral is against God's law. My opinion in these matters isn't subjective - it is based on God's law. Your subjective opinion says same-sex fake marriage is okay, while God soundly condemns homosexual behavior. Your subjective opinion says abortion is okay, while God soundly condemns murder.
Stick your opinion up your 4th point of contact.
You are conflating your subjective opinion with fact. I'm sorry I can't help you understand that reality.
Good luck.
Dan
Just by way of helping, just in case you fellas can understand the point:
Instead of what Glenn actually said, here's the more factual way of putting it...
Your subjective opinion says same-sex fake marriage is okay, while
I, GLENN KILTMAN, THINK, IN MY OPINION, THAT God soundly condemns homosexual behavior.
BUT I CAN'T PROVE IT, IT'S ONLY MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION
Your subjective opinion says abortion is okay, while
I, GLENN KILTMAN, THINK, IN MY OPINION, THAT God soundly condemns murder...
BUT I CAN'T PROVE IT, IT'S ONLY MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION
And so, Dan has HIS subjective opinion on topics like these, and I have MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION on topics like these, and neither of us can prove our opinions. Dan thinks he is most clearly right, while I disagree.
That is the more factually correct way of putting it. I know that you all appear to have a hard time understanding that reality, and I don't know how else to help you.
Good luck, fellas.
~Dan
Oh, and Craig, there's an example of a conservative conflating their opinions with actual facts. There's an example of a conservative who does not think their opinion on these topics can be mistaken.
You'll have to take that up with Glenn, if you disagree. It would be a good chance for you to address those on your side who go over the top on confusing their opinions with God's Word. IF you agree with that. It's hard to say with you.
~Dan
Dan,
Leave your lame "opinion versus fact" argument at your own blog. It certainly doesn't play any better here, where your credibility and ability are more openly in question.
As to that, your anecdotal stories regarding refugees you know won't score you any points, either. More importantly, no one suggests those people are lying, as there's no way we could possibly know that one way or another. However, your version of their stories is another matter entirely. You give us no reason to believe your versions are correct OR false, and it's best to give up that tactic.
You said, "If someone has crossed the border and they've said it's because their lives are threatened back home, we ought not send them back unless we can somehow prove that they're safe and secure." But you assured us their countries of origins aren't "shit holes", so what do we do now? Why would these people be fleeing paradises? Either they're lying or your feigned outrage at Trump referring to their homes as "shit holes" was mere Trump-hating posturing. You can't have it both ways.
This...
"WE. OUGHT. NOT. CRIMINALIZE. CROSSING. THE. BORDER. FOR. THOSE. SEEKING. SAFETY. AND. SECURITY."
...is NOT a policy proposal. What's more, it's a blatant and willful lie. They aren't "criminalized" for seeking safety and security. They're "criminalized" for entering the country illegally. I'm sorry I can't help you understand this reality.
You've been insisting that there are many stories of refugees being deported to their homelands to face death and torture. What I've been unable to find is any article that describes why this would be happening at all, and if it is the laws governing immigration or asylum that are the cause (which might indicate they are indeed "immoral"...which is an inane notion). Sure, I've seen tons of articles (from leftist sources of all kinds) saying it happens, but not why. That it happens is not an indictment on the laws of our country, unless you can point to specific sections of specific laws that could be judged as immoral. I've come across a UN thing that covers international agreement for how refugees should be protected, but it was over 170 pages and am not up to studying something that large at present.
So why would a refugee who claims death awaits him should he be sent home be deported? I can't seem to find anything that addresses this question regardless of how many ways I ask the question in search engines. The closest I've come to seeing it addressed at all is in this article which points to a most difficult to resolve reason: the system in place is just imperfect. But can there be a perfect system? I would wager no, that there will always be the likelihood of a true refugee deported and getting murdered or beaten upon his arrival home. That doesn't make the laws or the system immoral. Just imperfect.
continuing...
The article also brings up another question: What if all people seeking entry make the claim that their lives are endangered and thus need asylum? Based on the article, it seems that such claims are assumed to be true...at least given the benefit of the doubt initially until the veracity of the claim is determined. Based on the article, we're already doing the proving as you insist we must. It's already a daunting task given all the problems the article discusses, but if all attempts were based on this claim, the cost in money, time, personnel, space would to unimaginable...not that you simple livers care, considering you expect others to foot the bill so you can feel holy for demanding it.
But if you want to keep these people safe, why not arm them and send them back? Why no rescind our policy against assassination and send covert ops to take out the corrupt politicians that threaten the lives of their own people? Why not send hit squads to kill off the cartels and cops who work for them? And in the meantime, why not utilize every square inch of your home and property to house and feed as many refugees as could possibly be squeezed into it? Just keep them coming. You certainly can't turn them away.
"Your subjective opinion says same-sex fake marriage is okay, while
I, GLENN KILTMAN, THINK, IN MY OPINION, THAT God soundly condemns homosexual behavior.
BUT I CAN'T PROVE IT, IT'S ONLY MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION"
But it is a proven fact. God condemns homosexual behavior in Lev 18:22 and in no way mitigates this reality anywhere in Scripture. References to this behavior being practiced in the lands the Jews were leaving and as well as in the lands to which they were headed indicates the universal nature of this prohibition.
"Your subjective opinion says abortion is okay, while
I, GLENN KILTMAN, THINK, IN MY OPINION, THAT God soundly condemns murder...
BUT I CAN'T PROVE IT, IT'S ONLY MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION"
But it is a proven fact. It is the 6th Commandment and like the previous point, is obviously not a subjective opinion. It is clear and direct without any mystery or ambiguity such as that which you'd like there to be in order to maintain your vile and unChristian positions on those subjects. Unlike your false statement about us, however, I have no doubt you understand this reality. The truth is you reject it because you don't like it. But it is the reality.
Trabue,
You are still the fool. Following God's commands is not my subjective opinion.
I can PROVE God soundly condemns homosexual behavior, as I do in this article;
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html
It is NOT my subjective opinion, rather it has been the understanding of the Jews prior to Christ and it has been the understanding of every Christian until fake Christians began showing up in the late 20th century promoting a god of their own making.
"Thou shall not murder". Yeah, that's my subjective opinion.
Thanks for proving again how foolish you are resorting to name-calling.
Name calling? Are you referring to "kiltman..."? I just couldn't recall your last name, but I did recall you wear kilts, so I used that as a last name. I happen to think wearing kilts is cool as hell, so, certainly no intent to name call. Wear that kilt with pride, man!
"Still the fool..."? And I'm name calling?
Sorry I can't help you all distinguish between fact and opinion. MAYBE Craig will help you understand, but I rather doubt he'll intervene (and not sure if he understands, either).
Good luck, gentlemen.
~Dan
Trabue,
"Fool" isn't name-calling, it is identifying what you are --BIBLICALLY!
And forgetting my last name is not an excuse, since you've been using my first name. ONce again proving yourself the fool (one who refuses instruction).
I didn't state any opinion, I proved the fact that God condemns homosexual behavior and murder. I know...You and your ilk who worship another god and another "christ" know your interpretation is superior over thousands of years of Jews, Christians and biblical scholars. Again proving yourself a fool.
Go back to your own blog and try to convince people their that you are a superior intellect; everyone here KNOWS you are foolish.
Dan, if you’re not going to pay attention to my specific comments, ignore them, and attempt to put words in my mouth, I have two things to say.
1. It’s clear that you have only a minimal desire to actually engage with what people actually say, preferring to read cast people’s positions into straw men and attack those.
2. For someone who is do dishonest in twisting what other people say, your post about lying continues to be more and more ironic.
Dan,
I have enough troubles with you and your flexibility, I don’t have the time or inclination to try to do for you what you can’t do for yourself.
As Art pointed out, your “policy proposal” is nothing of the sort. The fact that you’ve stated your very premise in a way that doesn’t conform to reality is just the first flaw.
1. Define “seeking safety”. Does the drug dealer who ripped of his supplier get the same consideration as the 10 year old captured by Muslims for sex slavery?
2. Define what this refuge looks like. Do these people automatically get citizenship? Permanent residence? Work permit? A safe place to work through the process? Welfare? Free medical care?
3. What if they’re lying about or exaggerating the danger they face? Are there levels of danger that should be considered?
4. Does this magical “policy proposal” guarantee a specific end result or simply guarantee access to a safe avenue to move through the legal process?
5. Would this “policy proposal” differentiate between someone who crossed the border illegally, but immediately went to the proper authorities and appealed for consideration differently than someone who crossed illegally, purchased illegal documentation to work or collect welfare, or someone who crossed because of danger yet engaged in some sort of criminal activity?
6. What about a ruling despot, overthrown by his citizens who will be brutally executed without any sort of legal process if returned to his home country.
These are the sorts of questions that would be answered in a serious proposal.
You’re welcome to do so.
Fine points, Craig. I'm sure we could come up with more questions that need to be answered. Yet, if all such points are addressed in new legislation, will it mean that people threatened won't ever be sent back to face those threats due to human error alone on both the part om immigration officials or the refugees themselves? And should such errors occur, or simply if difficulty of one kind or another persists in resulting in such unfortunate outcomes, does that make the law immoral as it appears to Dan that imperfections in current policy denotes?
Art, I agree that perfection is impossible and it’s ridiculous to think it is. But Dan’s calculus is that the possibility of even one person being returned to danger is worth erring on the side of open borders. The problem is, it ignores the trade off in potential harm to US citizens. Clearly an open borders policy is going to result in a certain number of criminals crossing. So, the other question is how many Americans are the Dans of the world willing to see victimized by violent crime before they’re willing to admit that open borders is an overreaction. It’s a misunderstanding of the concept that the first priority of a secular government is to look out for the citizens they govern.
I know it’s a radical concept (not to rational people), but it’s why the oaths of office don’t ever mention citizens of other countries.
The funny thing is, that an excellent argument could be made that common sense/reasonable border control measures would actually benefit those in immamant danger.
UK Daily Mail article that 65% of refugees who claimed to be children were not. Please refugees, let’s start your life in a new country by lying about your age.
Dan has gotten big on demanding proof of everything recently, I wonder if he’s this thorough when he talks to the 10 refugees he bases his tantrums on? Because, there’s no possible way they’d exaggerate the dangers to gain sympathy from folks like Dan.
I feel the same when he talks about Nicaraguans.
Perhaps Trabue should read about some FACTS:
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/09/data-indicates-illegal-immigrants-exploiting-u-s-asylum-policies-false-claims/
Post a Comment