RE: Open Border Insanity... Illegal Immigrants, Illegal Aliens, Refugees, Migrants, Compassion "Oh My"

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Open Border Insanity... Illegal Immigrants, Illegal Aliens, Refugees, Migrants, Compassion "Oh My"

in openborders •  6 years ago 

but...but...the INDIANS.
(shrug)
My ancestors were invaders....successful invaders
There's a lesson there.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I’m an Indian... Chippewa from Michigan and I want the Borders closed

Posted using Partiko iOS

Hell I have quite a bit of Cherokee and Chickasaw ancestry in my genes. My step father had a fair amount of Choctaw as well. Yet my skin is almost as pale as it can get. My father had pale skin, but his sister my aunt with the same parents he had has a complexion that seems more native American.

Everyone has been invaded, or been invaders, or has ancestors who experienced or were complicit with such things. It is a weak argument, but it is one commonly used.

It is good to see you USE your mind, unlike so many these days.

I am not going to blame ANYONE for what their ancestors did, or did not do. That is not in their control.

I will blame and challenge events that are happening NOW.

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

So by making baseless assertions that have no reasoning or sensibility behind them you consider that "using your mind", yet how would you retort that immigration and invasion are not the same thing since one is done for the purpose of starting a life, adding value to a community and the other is for starting a conflict and or war and to displace or outright exterminate the same community that an immigrant wishes to be a part of, and how can you consider them to be the same?

The colonists weren't invaders, and to think that you can compare the borders to a city, or a state or in this case to a Federation of States as the same as the borders of a house is careening on the abyss of insanity, absurdity and utter nonsense, because it takes no great mental faculties to differentiate between invader and immigrant and one need but a dim dim lit mind to spot the laughable and audacious abortion of logic which reasons that immigrants are leeches or criminals, when this country was literally built on the sweat of their brow, and no matter how much "legality" you want to throw at immigration I have no doubt that you couldn't muster any specific guidelines for immigration that find even minor acceptance from the people because you've demonstrated only disdain for immigrants and broadly painted them as criminals whence there's no victim as if the fruits and vegetables at the store and the numerous jobs that "illegals" offer had ANY consideration from you, you who positioned himself as "provider" and "protector" of the proverbial household that likely was partially put together by "illegal" people, and for those reasons I can safely expect for your quiet acquiesce that you're a lazy, pseudo intellectual that has no interest in discussing immigration or the issues underlying it.

I have a longer comment below and to the guy that replied to you. I actually did a lot of comments in this post. It's gotten some good reply activity.

The INDIANS (aka Native Americans) were known to invade each other, and even have slavery themselves. Different tribes were like different nations. In fact they referred to each other as nations.

The fact is every spec of land has changed hands over time.

The only thing you should be responsible for is YOUR actions. Not those of your ancestors. If your ancestors owned slaves that does not make you a slave owner. You were not alive.

If your ancestor was a serial killer. That doesn't make you a serial killer.

You owe the descendants of actions taken by others and NOT you nothing. Likewise, they owe you nothing.

The only thing you are responsible for is your choices and their consequences.

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

But but, o wait there was a quip about words and reason, invaders refer to an organized army, not families, and it's about war, not migration. The other epic fail is that illegal means criminals means thieves, murderers and rapists, so who picks your fruits and veggies by hand, by and large? So much for adding value to the economy, because why not relegate them to the label of criminal based on laws that are neither law nor public and have neither victim, the "thought " exercise that begins by "they're invaders" when referring to migration, because so much for reasoning like "invaders have a different intent and objectives than immigrants". All hail the "legality" of the ones who don't virtue signal as "I'm such a witty intellectual, unlike those barbarians that don't even use words and logic to devalue both words and logic"

#thelololol #applesareoranges #imigrationIsOnlyOkIfItsLegalBecauseLogicAndImAnAnarchistAtHeart

It depends upon the dictionary you look at. The older they are it is likely a lot different than what you'll get most places. I actually did look at a lot of dictionaries before using the terms.

Though in modern times the definitions of a lot of words are being changed. Often changed from what they have been for 1000s of years.

Yet let's take it a step further. A dictionary is made by humans. That is why each dictionary differs. They are meant as a tool to help people learn words they don't know. They however, are not the AUTHORITY on what a word must be. Otherwise, they'd have the same definitions. They don't. So falling upon dictionary definitions is nothing more than an Argument from Authority fallacy. ;)

I buy into definitions a lot more if they are accompanied by the etymology of the word.

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

If you have a disagreement with a dictionary definition it's a semantic argument. Tell me, if I were to ask you to differentiate between immigrant and invader, what would be the difference? If we cannot agree on what words mean then there's no point in talking, and I think you've stretched authority to mean anything now, especially considering there's no one authority in charge there and you might as well say it's a fallacy of popularity as that would be much more veracious, don't you think?