NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2428344,00.html

Do you all think we should throw the illegal immigrants out, like I do. If this is getting rid of them we need MORE not LESS. (I wish I could make the smily thats bashing his head on the wall).

The point of road searches is not to keep you happy and smiling, it's to keep you on your toes.

And I don't exactly feel safe knowing an illegal immigrant is driving. Living here is barely alright, but driving? No...just no.

They're saying it's discrimination against unliscenced drivers? So what exactly gives people without a liscence the right to be driving in the first place?

They're saying it's discrimination against unliscenced drivers? So what exactly gives people without a liscence the right to be driving in the first place?

Exactly. (did you delete roach-busters).

Okay...so because unlincensed drivers and illegal immigrants don't want the cops to know they're driving illegally, the cops of Oakland are now more prone do drunk driver.

(did you delete roach-busters).
Two different people, two different kinds of roaches. :)

I think Enodscopia is the conservative TRA.

Immigrant activists say roadblocks discriminate against those without licenses
Next they'll be complaining that the police discriminate against criminals. The Police are always out looking for criminals, dragging them off the street when they do find some. :rolleyes:

I think Enodscopia is the conservative TRA.

Hey this isn't about extermination or none of that this is just a moderate issue right here.

Next they'll be complaining that the police discriminate against criminals. The Police are always out looking for criminals, dragging them off the street when they do find some. :rolleyes:

Yep, I can see it now. "Jail bars discriminate against people behind them".
In 50 years I won't doubt it at all.

Hey this isn't about extermination or none of that this is just a moderate issue right here.
Yeah, seriously. I admit, I sort of agree with you, Letila, but it doesn't seem to me that anyone has said anything unreasonable in this thread (except for the ones quoted in the article, of course). So let's try and keep this one as civil as we can.

why do people complain so much?

if you do nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about.

"Could you show me your license?"
"Okay, here."
"Okay, sir, have a nice day."

What is the "complaint" issue here?

This sort of thing, people complaining about the law doing what it's supposed to do, is the result of relativism. Since these people (and the evil lawyers and "civil rights" advocates that support them) deny the existence of moral and ethical absolutes, the "law" is then left up for any number of contradictory and dangerous interpretations -- and as one person already suggested, I'll take it a notch further and say, give it another 50 years and it'll be illegal to discriminate against a child molestor if he applies for a job at a day care center. Heck, I might even shoot for 20 years on that one at the rate we're already snowballing.

Yep, I can see it now. "Jail bars discriminate against people behind them".
In 50 years I won't doubt it at all.
I can just imagine it:
"Today, thousands of criminals, drunk drivers and illegal immigrants took to the streets, protesting against what they call discrimination by the Police. The Spokesman for the group, 'Snake', complained that the cops are not allowing him to do his job. 'Uhh, yeah, how can I, like, rob a 7-11 or, like, mug and rape an old woman confidently, when I have to always be looking over my shoulder afraid at any time a cop might, like, shoot me or sumethin.' Snake replied, before putting a knife to my throat and demanding my wallet.
Tragically, the protest turned violent when several protesters got into a gang fight over someone dissin' another player's ho. Later a drunk driver accidently plowed through several protesters when he forgot which was his brake."

I rarely agree with you Enodoscopia (and I don't agree totally now - I think there should be an easier way for immigrants who can easily demonstrate that they are not dangerous to become citizens), but I do here. If you don't have a license, you shouldn't be driving. Period. (Unless you are driving someone to the hospital or something, then it's ok =)

But if they set up roadblocks for all the illegal immigrants then how am I supposed to get good fruit really cheaply off the street? It would be horrible!

*shakes his head* THis has got to go into the 'Only in California' file. I mean, how DARE the police enforce laws! :eek:

Why stop with unlicensed drivers?

What about airline screenings? I don't think it's fair that they screen everybody for firearms. It's discriminatory against us citizens that are packing heat, but have no intention of hijacking planes! :mad:

I don't know how it is where you all are from but...

In Canada if you can't speak, read or write in english your allowed to have an interpretuer come in with you and do your dirvers exam for you.

I FOR ONE, DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS AT ALL!

In Canada, are non-Canadians eligible to get drivers' licences? How about business licences? Can they run for office too?

In one state here, California or Arizona IIRC, there is a movement to pass laws allowing non-US Americans to be licenced to drive. Although I find myself in rare agreement with this thread's initiator in regards to not backing off drunk drivers nor letting unlicensed drivers to drive simply because they are here illegally, I do support allowing them to be licensed. Why? They're driving anyway. If some poor illegal crashes into me with an unlicenced car, I will be victimized by his lack of auto insurence, which he would need a license to have.

But as far as letting them drive unlicenced and uninsured, fuck that! Just because they're here illegally doesn't make them exempt from the rest of the laws. Let them be licensed, don't require a current visa for them to do it, and our roads will be safer.

In Canada, are non-Canadians eligible to get drivers' licences? How about business licences? Can they run for office too?

In one state here, California or Arizona IIRC, there is a movement to pass laws allowing non-US Americans to be licenced to drive. Although I find myself in rare agreement with this thread's initiator in regards to not backing off drunk drivers nor letting unlicensed drivers to drive simply because they are here illegally, I do support allowing them to be licensed. Why? They're driving anyway. If some poor illegal crashes into me with an unlicenced car, I will be victimized by his lack of auto insurence, which he would need a license to have.

But as far as letting them drive unlicenced and uninsured, fuck that! Just because they're here illegally doesn't make them exempt from the rest of the laws. Let them be licensed, don't require a current visa for them to do it, and our roads will be safer.
How about, if they attempt to get that license we send them back to their country of origin, so that they might follow the proscribed method of entry into this country. They could become a citizen if they wished... or just obtain temporary work visa's, which ever suits their personal needs.

And as far as California is concerned.... when that state, or portions thereof are trying to allow illegal immigrants the right to vote... they have lost whatever common sense was left to them.

How about, if they attempt to get that license we send them back to their country of origin, so that they might follow the proscribed method of entry into this country. They could become a citizen if they wished... or just obtain temporary work visa's, which ever suits their personal needs.

And as far as California is concerned.... when that state, or portions thereof are trying to allow illegal immigrants the right to vote... they have lost whatever common sense was left to them.

Then it wasn't California, or at least not what you're thinking of.

And anyway if they know that they will be deported if they apply for drivers' licenses, they will continue to drive uninsured cars without licenses. How about that?

Then it wasn't California, or at least not what you're thinking of.

And anyway if they know that they will be deported if they apply for drivers' licenses, they will continue to drive uninsured cars without licenses. How about that?
I am not for anything that allows them to stay in this country for any reason.
It was San Francisco. Wanting to allow illegal immigrants the right to vote in local school board elections.
Which is a stupid precident to set.

I am not for anything that allows them to stay in this country for any reason.
It was San Francisco. Wanting to allow illegal immigrants the right to vote in local school board elections.
Which is a stupid precident to set.

Stop blathering on about giving non-citizens the right to vote. That's not only stupid but it makes you look stupid to bring it up repeatedly when no one else is talking about it.

Allowing them drivers' licences does not allow them to stay in this country. What it does is allow them to insure the cars they are already driving, and it allows us to make reasonably sure that all drivers on our roads are licenced.

Stop blathering on about giving non-citizens the right to vote. That's not only stupid but it makes you look stupid to bring it up repeatedly when no one else is talking about it.

Allowing them drivers' licences does not allow them to stay in this country. What it does is allow them to insure the cars they are already driving, and it allows us to make reasonably sure that all drivers on our roads are licenced.
Merely refuting your statement. That is all.

How can you say that giving them licenses does not allow them to stay in this country? The simple fact that the government official does not deport them on the spot allows them to stay in this country by not deporting them.

Immigration is allowed and encouraged. Why can't they do so legally?

Merely refuting your statement. That is all.

How can you say that giving them licenses does not allow them to stay in this country? The simple fact that the government official does not deport them on the spot allows them to stay in this country by not deporting them.

Immigration is allowed and encouraged. Why can't they do so legally?

Quotas.

Not giving them licenses is not the same as deporting them. They will simply not apply for licenses, and continue unlicensed driving of uninsured cars. Is there something about this that you are not getting?

Quotas.

Not giving them licenses is not the same as deporting them. They will simply not apply for licenses, and continue unlicensed driving of uninsured cars. Is there something about this that you are not getting?
Yes, there is something Im not getting. Im not getting why you would want to allow criminals to continue breaking the law?
If you do not agree with the law, that's fine. You have the right to campaign to change the law.
I have the right to campaign to have people follow the law. Which includes deporting illegal immigrants.

This sort of thing, people complaining about the law doing what it's supposed to do, is the result of relativism. Since these people (and the evil lawyers and "civil rights" advocates that support them) deny the existence of moral and ethical absolutes, the "law" is then left up for any number of contradictory and dangerous interpretations -- and as one person already suggested, I'll take it a notch further and say, give it another 50 years and it'll be illegal to discriminate against a child molestor if he applies for a job at a day care center. Heck, I might even shoot for 20 years on that one at the rate we're already snowballing.

You're crazy. Why do you feel it necessary to demonise people who don't believe in (your set of) "moral absolutes"? One man's "moral absolute" is another man's grey area, even among people who believe such things exist. For example, one "moral absolutist" might say that killing another human being is always morally wrong -- the Catholic Church's current view. Another "moral absolutist" might say that the execution of a convicted criminal is morally acceptable. Which of these "moral absolutes" is the absolutest, and why? And what sort of slippery slope are you dreaming up which leads from a non-belief in a Universal Moral Code to equal rights for paedophiles?

Perhaps if you could name one "moral absolute", and show how it's an objective function of the universe and not merely an opinion, it would be easier for me to believe in them. While you're at it, think over the various crimes -- including serial child abuse, ironically enough -- which believers in "moral absolutes" have committed on a regular basis.

You're crazy. Why do you feel it necessary to demonise people who don't believe in (your set of) "moral absolutes"? One man's "moral absolute" is another man's grey area, even among people who believe such things exist. For example, one "moral absolutist" might say that killing another human being is always morally wrong -- the Catholic Church's current view. Another "moral absolutist" might say that the execution of a convicted criminal is morally acceptable. Which of these "moral absolutes" is the absolutest, and why? And what sort of slippery slope are you dreaming up which leads from a non-belief in a Universal Moral Code to equal rights for paedophiles?

Perhaps if you could name one "moral absolute", and show how it's an objective function of the universe and not merely an opinion, it would be easier for me to believe in them. While you're at it, think over the various crimes -- including serial child abuse, ironically enough -- which believers in "moral absolutes" have committed on a regular basis.

If there are no moral absolutes, then child sex could become morally acceptable if enough people believed it was. Take your prozac and calm down. Then, if you still feel that way, tell us how, in a world without moral absolutes, child sex could be kept from becoming morally acceptable.

[QUOTE=Jeldred]

Perhaps if you could name one "moral absolute", and show how it's an objective function of the universe and not merely an opinion, it would be easier for me to believe in them. [QUOTE]
Is rape only wrong because the majority of people believe it's wrong? If I built up a community that promoted and encouraged rape, would it be morally right to rape as long as I'm in those borders? I really think there are objective morals. It's up to human beings to try to figure out what those morals are.

If there are no moral absolutes, then child sex could become morally acceptable if enough people believed it was. Take your prozac and calm down. Then, if you still feel that way, tell us how, in a world without moral absolutes, child sex could be kept from becoming morally acceptable.

I hate to tell you, but there have been human societies where child sex was morally acceptable -- because there are no such things as "moral absolutes". Child sex could, indeed, become "morally acceptable" if enough people believed it was. Hopefully, though, an understanding of the mental and physical damage it does, along with a developed sense of human rights, will mean that, barring a total collapse of civilisation, we won't see such societies again.

I remain perfectly calm. I merely object to being told that my lack of superstition is the reason the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Relatively speaking, of course. :)

Is rape only wrong because the majority of people believe it's wrong? If I built up a community that promoted and encouraged rape, would it be morally right to rape as long as I'm in those borders? I really think there are objective morals. It's up to human beings to try to figure out what those morals are.

You are free to believe anything you like, but if you can't quantify them and you can't measure them, then you're not going to be able to convince me that they exist. Marital rape was, until really quite recently, deemed to be "morally acceptable". It's not any more, because -- thankfully -- morality is a function of, and changes with, society.

Perhaps I should be clearer: I have nothing against individuals holding on to personal moral aboslutes: I do that myself. I also don't object to people believing that moral abosultes do actually have an objective existance in some way, despite the complete impossibility of demonstrating this. I do object to pious cries that all social problems are a result of a lack of superstition.

I hate to tell you, but there have been human societies where child sex was morally acceptable -- because there are no such things as "moral absolutes". Child sex could, indeed, become "morally acceptable" if enough people believed it was. Hopefully, though, an understanding of the mental and physical damage it does, along with a developed sense of human rights, will mean that, barring a total collapse of civilisation, we won't see such societies again.

I remain perfectly calm. I merely object to being told that my lack of superstition is the reason the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Relatively speaking, of course. :)

Then address the question of rape as morally acceptable.
Or assault.
Or theft.
Or murder.

Simply because "everybody does it" doesn't mean it's morally acceptable. Those human societies that accepted child sex were practicing actions that are morally reprehensible.

Then address the question of rape as morally acceptable.
Or assault.
Or theft.
Or murder.

Simply because "everybody does it" doesn't mean it's morally acceptable. Those human societies that accepted child sex were practicing actions that are morally reprehensible.

Morally reprehensible by your standard (and mine too, I might add). What makes you sure that your moral standard is the universal one? Morality is merely an expression of the opinions of the age. We are appalled at things our ancestors showed no qualms with; our descendants will blanch when they read about what we do now with clear consciences.

I don't think that murder, rape, theft or assault are morally acceptable, and I think that anyone who does -- past, present or future -- is wrong (although there are definitions of "theft" that need to be worked out: lending money at interest might be one of them). But those are merely my opinions: they do not exist as universal absolute laws. You cannot built a moralometer and measure morality. It is an abstract, subjective, human concept.

I hate to tell you, but there have been human societies where child sex was morally acceptable -- because there are no such things as "moral absolutes". Child sex could, indeed, become "morally acceptable" if enough people believed it was. Hopefully, though, an understanding of the mental and physical damage it does, along with a developed sense of human rights, will mean that, barring a total collapse of civilisation, we won't see such societies again.

I remain perfectly calm. I merely object to being told that my lack of superstition is the reason the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Relatively speaking, of course. :)

So are you admitting that the "slippery slope" argument that you were froathing at the mouth over is totally valid? In 50 years or so we may have pedophiles successfully suing over not being hired to watch children. Societies in the past have accepted sex with children, and who knows what our society will look like in 50 years?

Your entire rant hinged on your dismissal of a projected state of things that your subsequent post reveals is highly possible. Good job.

Oh, btw Jeldred, would you say that it is always wrong to follow moral absolutes?

So are you admitting that the "slippery slope" argument that you were froathing at the mouth over is totally valid? In 50 years or so we may have pedophiles successfully suing over not being hired to watch children. Societies in the past have accepted sex with children, and who knows what our society will look like in 50 years?

Your entire rant hinged on your dismissal of a projected state of things that your subsequent post reveals is highly possible. Good job.

??

er... no. I admit that it is a possibility, although I think 50 years would be far too short for such a 180-degree moral turnaround. It's not "highly possible", in fact I would go so far as to say that it was extremely, vanishingly unlikely. Hypothetically, though, for the sake of argument, it is "possible", because the morality of a society is merely the collective opinion of a given group of people, and as such is subject to change over the generations. This is not a "slippery slope" argument. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you.

Oh, btw Jeldred, would you say that it is always wrong to follow moral absolutes?

No, of course not -- and not only because that itself would be a moral absolute. I have what I regard as moral absolutes of my own. They are absolute to me. There are bounds beyond which I would not go and which I regard as fundamental. However, I do not believe that these are somehow ingrained within the fabric of the universe: they are merely my opinions.

Why do you believe that objective, exterior moral absolutes exist, despite the lack of any objective evidence for them?

[Enodscopia #1]
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2428344,00.html

Do you all think we should throw the illegal immigrants out, like I do. If this is getting rid of them we need MORE not LESS. (I wish I could make the smily thats bashing his head on the wall).


Yet another example of the rise of PC'ness run amok.

The catering to the noisey-whiney-"fnook-authority" class will soon create a backlash that will do some INTERESTING things to this society.

It will be very interesting indeed, and it will be soon.

The more they whine and blither, the quicker and more fiercely it will happen.

My hope,.. they continue showing themselves as clearly and noisily as possible,.. and the hammer comes down fast and hard.

Keep it up..! Please,.. keep the music coming.