Social Question
Do you think the conservative dislike of DACA has at least part of its basis in the misinterpretation of the biblical passages about the sins of the father?
45 Answers
No. I think it’s deeper than that. The thing that disturbs me most about what currently passes for popular conservatism is that regardless of the issue or topic under discussion, the conservative position will dependably lean toward the mean or heartless solution.
No, it is based on simple nastiness and nativism. And more than a little bit of white supremacy thrown in.
If the conservatives were following the bible, they would be welcoming strangers to their midst.
No it doesn’t. It’s more about America First and protecting borders/ jobs than anything else. I’m always entertained hearing liberals try to explain conservative thought, not even close to the truth.
@KNOWITALL not trying to explain it, just trying to understand it. BUT, I think there may be some lingering background noise from this lesson learned in Sunday School. It does give a possible explanation for the desire to punish those who were guilty of nothing more than being born in the wrong place to the wrong parents.
Also, Just a gentle chiding here but you are conflating border protection with DACA and they are two separate issues at this point.
@rojo I know exactly what it is and if you don’t understand the correlation between undocumented immigrants and DACA, you will never understand the conservative pov. Carry on.
@KNOWITALL I think it’s true in this case and many others that although the people who think conservative positions seem nasty and bigoted and are themselves being vicious about it, really have no idea what the positive logic of those conservative positions might be. Unfortunately, the viciousness tends to deter any conservative trying to explain what it actually is. But I think most such people would listen if it could be explained in terms they can hear, and it could raise the conversation above the dysfunctional level it generally wallows at.
The only correlation between them, @KNOWITALL, is that they were all born somewhere else. The Dreamers are contributing to this society in a big way. They have to to be eligible for DACA.
It’s more about America First and protecting borders/ jobs than anything else.
America First was the slogan of conservatives who admired what Germany was doing in the 1930s and early 1940s, and sought to keep America from interfering in Europe.
No surprise that Trump voters use the same euphemistic rhetoric used by immigrant haters when they were fighting to keep out the Irish, the Chinese, the southern and eastern Europeans and everybody else who wasn’t of “good” (meaning Anglo-Saxon) stock.
I don’t think it has anything to do at all with biblical anything. I think it has to do with the fact that we are a country. A country cannot exist without borders. We cannot exist without laws. If you take those things away, you have mayhem and anarchy. DACA was an effort by a lawless president to bypass Congress and establish law. The illegal immigration issue in this country is out of control and at some point you just have to say “Stop”. It has absolutely nothing to do with race or hatred or anything else. It has to do with common sense.
Is there NO compassion in your heart anywhere? I like your Christ but I do not like your Christians.
It’s interesting when people suggest there is no compassion in my heart. Let me ask…should we just open up your house to let whomever wishes to enter there? That sounds like an idea. No boundaries, right? Why shouldn’t anyone that wants to be able to come into your house because they like the way you live?
@seawulf575 Are you saying conservatives feel the same level of intrusion about immigrants to their country?
What I’m saying is that there are laws in place to protect your home from invasion and the general attitude seems to be that is okay. But it isn’t okay to enforce the laws that protect the boundaries of our country. I really can’t see the difference. I fail to see how someone can say I have no compassion for someone illegally entering this country when they aren’t willing to do away with their own personal boundaries.
Please note that nowhere in my answers have I said immigration is bad. But following the rules is a must. DACA has done everything outside of the rules.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that people like Scott Pruitt are really following the rules. It’s an administration of rule followers, isn’t it?
Scott Pruitt’s boss thinks rules are for stupid people.
Kiss fresh air goodbye and welcome coal mine dust and sulfur-dioxide in your air.
Oh and oil drilling in the Grand Canyon.
See you don’t need rules!
@seawulf575 You can’t see a difference because both are laws? Thanks, that is interesting and does seem to be a frequent difference in the values of conservatives, though it seems also that many (if not all) people of all camps care more about the laws they agree with on issues they care about than about laws they disagree with and/or issues they don’t care about. e.g. Non-conservatives may not agree with or care about immigration laws very much, and value the well-being and contributions of illegal immigrants much more than they care about the legal infractions, and more than they fear or are offended by them.
@zaku let me ask you…which laws are YOU allowed to break without any reprisals just because you want to? See, this is the slippery slope. We have laws. Laws are what keep us from anarchy. When you start saying it’s okay to violate some and not others, you weaken the importance of the laws. If we have laws that are onerous, then you change or repeal them. But you don’t get to just ignore them. And immigration hits at the basis of our nation. And for too many years, our elected leaders have ignored violations of our immigration laws. The funny part about all this is that I don’t blame the illegal immigrants. Politicians that use them are to blame for the situation we have today. But it has to end. And no matter where you say “We have to start enforcing our laws” someone here illegally will feel like they are being punished. Sorry, they (or their family) broke the law.
And I am getting really tired of hearing how great the DACAs are for our nation. 51% of immigrants are on some sort of public assistance as compared to 30% of native born households. If there are children, that number jumps to 76% of immigrants as compared to 52% of native born households. That a large percentage that aren’t giving great contributions to this nation but are, instead, actually being the exact opposite. Time to stop pushing rhetoric and get with facts.
And DACA isn’t even a law. That’s where it gets really muddy. The courts want to treat it like a law, but it was an Executive Action. Technically, President Trump could drop it without looking back and the courts would have nothing to say about it. Courts are supposed to rule on law. If the challenge was that President Trump can’t change an EO, that is just silly. If a court wants to say DACA is a law, then the immediate answer is that it is not since it was not created, nor voted on, by Congress. The POTUS does not get to create laws. So realistically, Obama created something that was designed to cause mischief.
@janbb I find the Scott Pruitt statement funny. Most of what he is accused of is from a disgruntled former employee and is being debunked daily. However, I am still of the mind that if he were found to have violated the law he should be punished. But the Pruitt case brings up another issue that is currently plaguing our country. It is the idea that you can make accusations against someone and they are considered guilty until proven innocent. That goes against the core of our nation as well. Ever notice how liberals always create these things that cause such mayhem and are damaging to the country?
@seawulf575 so Pruitt’s documented looting of the public treasury is a liberal invention? Liberals are manufacturing these scandals against the largest collection of incompetent thieves to ever grace ANY administration in the history of the country?
You forgot the Pruitt as a lawyer for an Oklahoma petroleum company sued the EPA because the of EPA guidelines, there goes clean air and water.
@stanleybmanly How, exactly did he “loot” the public treasury? Travel expenses? That isn’t a crime. AND, he has spent far less than the occupants of that position during the previous administration. Did you call for the to resign or are you just a hypocrite?
@seawulf575
“How, exactly did he “loot” the public treasury?” I’ll let him use your bank account for the next year instead of the tax payers !
It is fiduciary responsibility that neither he nor his boss believe in following; the expense account it a BIG deal maybe not for you or any of the “Trump can do no wrong!” ultra conservatives.
@Tropical_Willie You get the same challenge as @stanleybmanly: Did you have these same rantings about fiduciary responsibility with the to previous holders of that office or are you just a hypocrite?
Ah…so you really didn’t care when it was the Obama administration. And you certainly didn’t call for those people to resign. I don’t know about your world but in my world that is hypocrisy.
”@zaku let me ask you…which laws are YOU allowed to break without any reprisals just because you want to? See, this is the slippery slope. We have laws. Laws are what keep us from anarchy. When you start saying it’s okay to violate some and not others, you weaken the importance of the laws. If we have laws that are onerous, then you change or repeal them. But you don’t get to just ignore them.”
– That’s the principle, of course. In practice, most people CAN and DO routinely break many laws, and often there are no effects or reprisals, because laws are also just imaginary ideas and often don’t have anything to do with actual situations. Yes it does weaken the importance of the laws and is potentially a slippery slope, but that’s the existential difference between rules many people don’t even know or understand, and actual people doing stuff. Supposedly people are supposed to abide by contracts and agreements, but mostly they don’t get read. More often than not, the speed limit is ignored. There are many laws that lawmakers don’t bother to repeal but that are outdated or preposterous and don’t get enforced. And immigration is a massive example of this, with all sorts of different kinds of effects (positive and negative) on people and businesses.
“And immigration hits at the basis of our nation. And for too many years, our elected leaders have ignored violations of our immigration laws. The funny part about all this is that I don’t blame the illegal immigrants. Politicians that use them are to blame for the situation we have today. But it has to end. And no matter where you say “We have to start enforcing our laws” someone here illegally will feel like they are being punished. Sorry, they (or their family) broke the law.”
– Maybe if enough people who agree with that perspective stay in office long enough (though even if, good luck enforcing the laws effectively, even with a stupid environmental disaster of a border wall). Or alternatively, if enough people who disagree get elected, maybe the laws change and/or the laws continue not to be enforced.
On the other hand, I’m in the same boat as you with environmental protection and corporate and banking anti-trust issues. I think that shit’s evil and should be shut down and all laws enforced and new laws made. But it sucks for me because Trump is in office and he appoints corporate scumbags like Pruitt to make the EPA even less effective than it was and so on. Conservatives care about illegal immigrants, but they don’t seem to care so much about abuses by banks or industrial polluters.
“And I am getting really tired of hearing how great the DACAs are for our nation. 51% of immigrants are on some sort of public assistance as compared to 30% of native born households. If there are children, that number jumps to 76% of immigrants as compared to 52% of native born households. That a large percentage that aren’t giving great contributions to this nation but are, instead, actually being the exact opposite. Time to stop pushing rhetoric and get with facts.”
– And conservatives also care mostly about money (unless it’s being spent on the military-industrial complex and its wars for oil domination) and hate welfare. Yet I wonder how much the Republican politicians mainly make noise about immigration, but really aren’t about to want their corporate sponsors to not be able to find nice cheap illegals to work for them.
“And DACA isn’t even a law. That’s where it gets really muddy. The courts want to treat it like a law, but it was an Executive Action. Technically, President Trump could drop it without looking back and the courts would have nothing to say about it. Courts are supposed to rule on law. If the challenge was that President Trump can’t change an EO, that is just silly. If a court wants to say DACA is a law, then the immediate answer is that it is not since it was not created, nor voted on, by Congress. The POTUS does not get to create laws. So realistically, Obama created something that was designed to cause mischief.”
– Perspective clearly applies to EO’s too. I wonder then why Trump doesn’t drop that EO? I wouldn’t put it past him to be ignorant of it, but I tend to think of actual policy decisions as being more a matter of what string-pullers actually want. Do they really want a major immigration/enforcement situation, or is it just a political stunt to rile up the xenophobic voters and get them to think Trump is on their side?
You are dodging. I asked what laws you are allowed to break, not if you break them. If you speed 10 mph over the limit and don’t get caught, does that make it right? And when you finally get a ticket, do you believe the cop and the courts are wrong and that those laws don’t apply to you? You can apply that to any law in the country. Take theft. Let’s say you steal some jewelry from your neighbor, but he doesn’t catch you at it. Do you get to keep the jewelry? What about when the cops figure out you broke the law…should you get to keep it just because you got away with it initially?
If new laws are made, they do need to be obeyed. But until they are, all those breaking them are still criminals. And don’t try the old rhetoric about conservatives allowing banks or polluters to break the law. It doesn’t fly and is a very weak strawman argument. As for Pruitt and the EPA, the part you fail to admit is that many of the rules implemented under Obama’s EPA had no basis in fact at all. They were bogus rules that weren’t based on anything other than whim. And yes, those do hurt American business and jobs for no reason other than they play well in a sound bite.
You are dodging again about my comments concerning the number of immigrants soaking up public funds. You make comments about how good DACA immigrants are for the economy. When I post the facts, you suddenly start with the strawman attacks on Republicans and conservatives. Grow up. You were wrong because you’ve got nothing except liberal rhetoric.
And you are dodging that DACA isn’t a law. If you listened honestly to what Trump was saying and doing, he made it very clear that DACA needed to end and he was giving Congress the chance to work out immigration reform…as it should have in the first place. The POTUS doesn’t get to make the laws. But he can undo this one. And there have been a number of legal challenges and Obama appointees that have tried blocking him. But they aren’t ruling on law. There is no law, so the courts have no jurisdiction.
“You are dodging. I asked what laws you are allowed to break, not if you break them.”
– Allowed by whom?
“If you speed 10 mph over the limit and don’t get caught, does that make it right?”
– Right in what sense, and according to whom?
_“And when you finally get a ticket, do you believe the cop and the courts are wrong and that those laws don’t apply to you?
– Speeding is a good example for me. I think a lot of speed limits are bullshit and should be much higher, especially for me, because I’m a damned good (and actually quite safety-conscious) driver and I’ll take responsibility if I do do any actual damage. I think that a 20 Mph speed limit default in all of Seattle is absolute bullshit, and I think it should not be the law.
And, that’s a completely different thing from the law not applying to me. The law is what it is, and applies to everyone though it does include exceptions, such as for police and people with C.D. plates (i.e. for when people are considered responsible competent adults whose business is considered important, instead of being treated like children and/or untrusted subjects to be controlled).
Clearly, the speed limit applies to almost everyone including me. But when I think a law is inappropriate, I don’t consider it morally wrong to break it (legally wrong, yes).
And there’s also the practical level, which includes the overwhelming majority of all cases of speeding, where what usually happens all day long is people mostly don’t notice the speed limit and drive according to their sense of what the right speed is. And, where mostly there is no one there to enforce the law. And, where even when there is an officer present, and even when they notice someone exceeding the legal limit, they can choose whether to enforce it or not, and more often than not, they choose not to, because in the overwhelming majority of all cases where the speed limit is exceeded, it has no negative impact on anyone, hardly anyone even notices, and almost no one thinks it’s a problem.
Morally, I think many or even most speed limits are too low, and I think enforcing those is mostly unethical.
“You can apply that to any law in the country.”
– You’re right, I can. And so does practically everyone else. Including conservatives who pretend to be righteous. For example, according to Ronald Reagan, it was a great idea to have Oliver North pull the Iran-Contra deal (in which he ended up convicted of 16 felonies), and currently the NRA is appointing him their president.
“Take theft. Let’s say you steal some jewelry from your neighbor, but he doesn’t catch you at it. Do you get to keep the jewelry?”
– Do you mean to write as if there were only one absolute morality? Clearly, if a thief robs someone and gets away with it, they do get to keep what they stole, and for some thieves’ moral codes, they consider that morally correct. They may even have the law on their side, such as when the government of Seattle sets up computer speed cameras on arterials near schools and rakes in embarassing piles of money even when most of the tickets could/should be tossed out for a variety or reasons (and are, when/if anyone realizes that and objects).
“What about when the cops figure out you broke the law…should you get to keep it just because you got away with it initially?”
– Again “should” according to what? Practically, the thief might have ways to abscond even if the police know, and he might feel justified. Legally, it depends on the specifics of the law, what’s happened to the jewels, and the statute of limitations. Morally, that’s up to each moral code. The thief might or might not feel entitled. The victim and most people probably thought all along that of course the thief never had a right to the jewels and never will. Some people would amputate the thief’s hand as well, or see castle law as a reason to justify blowing away any suspected thieves with a shotgun.
“If new laws are made, they do need to be obeyed. But until they are, all those breaking them are still criminals.”
– Technically, I’d say a criminal is someone who’s been convicted of a crime.
“And don’t try the old rhetoric about conservatives allowing banks or polluters to break the law. It doesn’t fly and is a very weak strawman argument.”
– From where I’m standing, it’s a very apt argument and only “weak” for people whose “conservative” values don’t give much of a flip about the environment or non-rich people, and who value rich people and banks and large corporations, and/or who are opposed to laws that try to rein in or punish certain behavior such as pollution or taking advantage of customers.
“As for Pruitt and the EPA, the part you fail to admit is that many of the rules implemented under Obama’s EPA had no basis in fact at all. They were bogus rules that weren’t based on anything other than whim. And yes, those do hurt American business and jobs for no reason other than they play well in a sound bite.”
– “Fail to admit”? No, I’m sure there were unnecessary elements to some of the rules. It seems to me though that once again the difference in perspective comes down to what we think is important or not. You and Trump seem to think that American businesses and jobs being impacted means we should appoint an ex-corporate sleazebag to “head” the EPA and have it do as little as they can get away with, or even abolish it – clearly the agenda (whether it’s the one you mention about the bad reasoning impacting businesses and jobs, or has more to do with the massive profiteering that can be done by allowing all sorts of pollution and environmental destruction) is about money and possibly “fairness” and gives almost no weight to actually protecting the environment. Meanwhile my position would be that we need to protect our environment strongly against destructive exploitation, and if there are unfair rules, how about we make them fair instead of abolishing the EPA and legalizing toxic dumping in rivers and so on?
“You are dodging again about my comments concerning the number of immigrants soaking up public funds. You make comments about how good DACA immigrants are for the economy. When I post the facts, you suddenly start with the strawman attacks on Republicans and conservatives. Grow up. You were wrong because you’ve got nothing except liberal rhetoric.”
– If I’m “dodging,” what are you doing?
– I’ve consistently supported the theme that different people give different values to different issues.
– Those aren’t “strawman attacks”. I was pointing out that, as you keep demonstrating, you think “the facts” consist of statistics about how many immigrants take advantage of social programs or not. Those “facts” (which don’t particularly interest me, not enough to check) are only or particular importance to the “conservative” (some might call “small-minded and selfish and miserly and/or heartless and money-oriented”) obsession that social programs are akin to theft.
“And you are dodging that DACA isn’t a law.”
– I wasn’t trying to “dodge”. I responded to that, finding what you were interesting but not really following it, and tried to ask you if it’s the case that Rump can rescind it, why don’t his advisers have him do that instead of issuing incompetent EC’s of his own?
“If you listened honestly to what Trump was saying and doing, he made it very clear…”
– (The way Rump usually communicates has me ignoring as much of what he says as I can get away with.)
”... that DACA needed to end and he was giving Congress the chance to work out immigration reform…as it should have in the first place. The POTUS doesn’t get to make the laws. But he can undo this one. And there have been a number of legal challenges and Obama appointees that have tried blocking him. But they aren’t ruling on law. There is no law, so the courts have no jurisdiction.”
– Oh, interesting, thanks.
And now we see the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives view laws as being the law until changed. Liberals view laws as moral imperatives that really are suggestions to them unless they don’t feel they should apply. And that attitude pretty much carries over to all of reality as well. Very educational, thank you.
One thought to consider, though. Whose morals? What morals?
@seawulf575 What I see is you ignoring most of what I wrote but claiming some sort of superiority.
“Conservatives view laws as being the law until changed. Liberals view laws as moral imperatives that really are suggestions to them unless they don’t feel they should apply.”
- NO. As I tried to explain to you over and over and over and over above, we both agree there are laws, and we both think the laws that align with our moral ideas are the important ones that shouldn’t be violated, and we both tend to assign little importance to the laws (or violations of them) that don’t align with our own moral ideas.
- The difference I see, is that you don’t admit that about yourself, and try to say I’m “dodging” or making “strawman attacks”.
Looks like the Supreme Court may rule on this on regardless. And yes, it’s southern states, generally Repbulican.
Last month, seven states seeking to end the program filed suit in federal court in Texas, where judges have been more skeptical of the Obama administration’s immigration policies.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-daca-renewals-20180510-story.html
@seawulf575 I was reading your sweeping generalization on liberals and the law while sitting here in a coffee shop. Through the window, I had an exciting view as a pickup truck shot through the red light on the corner— liberal undoubtedly, just like Manafort, Flynn, Cohen et al.
@zaku allow me to sum up your previous answer. You purposely avoided answering the simple question: Which law are you allowed to violate? You went on and on about all sorts of things but purposely avoided actually answering. Allowed by whom? , right in what sense and according to whom?…these are dodges to avoid answering the question. It is a painfully obvious question that intuitively answers these questions and you have to go to extremes to try acting like it isn’t clear. And that you go to those extremes is just pitifully obvious.
You then delve into the morality of the laws and how morally they are okay to break. You even spent paragraphs setting up the idea that your morality applies to every one and supersedes the law. Let me help you…it doesn’t.
You bring up Ollie North as an example of how Conservatives support or share your morality towards law. But you obviously don’t actually read what you write. Ollie North was convicted of 16 felonies. And he did time for breaking the law. No one says he shouldn’t have. He broke the law, he is worthy of the penalties. Sort of shoots your own statement in the butt, doesn’t it? The fact that after he is punished he goes on to do other things has no bearing on anything. It has no part in the question “which law are you allowed to violate?”
We talk about theft and again…you jump right onto morality. Do you see the trend here? Three times so far you have tried making your views of morality supersede laws. No wait…4 because you continue in with the morality as the diatribe continues. Or is it just a dodge? Pretty much works out the same in the end.
You try to mince words with the definition of Criminal. Typical of liberals. Let me help you:
CRIMINAL: relating to, involving, or being a crime – Merriam-Webster; of the nature of or involving crime. – Dictionary.com; A criminal is defined as a person who has done something illegal. – yourdictionary.com; someone who has committed a crime or has been legally convicted of a crime – vocabulary.com; A person who has committed a crime. – Oxford dictionary.
But wait! Just in case you try some idiotic dodge again…let’s define CRIME!
CRIME: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government; especially : a gross violation of law – Merriam-Webster; an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. – Dictionary.com; An action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law. – Oxford dictionary.
Any way you cut it, you are dodging and being convicted has no bearing on whether something is a crime or not, nor if the person breaking that law is a criminal.
You end with a series of comments that reiterate your idea that laws are variables depending on the morals of the criminal.
So you equated morals to the application of laws at least 6 times through out and you never did answer the question of “which law are you allowed to violate”. So my follow up comment about the difference between liberals and conservatives holds true. Feel better now?
Laws can indeed be changed or altered. However, in this country, federal laws require congress to do either. DACA bypassed congress. It was unconstitutionally done. President Trump tried forcing congress to do something towards immigration reform to actually make the legal alterations. However our swampy congress is afraid of making decisions. Might cost them votes if they actually make a stand and work together for the good of the country. If you want to point at the real problem with immigration, point to congress.
@seawulf575. point to Congress? You mean Obama gets a pass?
@stanleybmanly not at all. He violated the Constitution to create the strife we are going through now. Congress is guilty of not doing anything, especially not their jobs.
@Dutchess_III DACA is supposed to go through the Senate. It didn’t though. For any immigration reform to be legally done, it will have to start in the House and then get through the Senate. DACA was created and implemented by Obama in a vacuum. The Executive branch does not get to create laws. And just for the record, if President Trump did something like that, I would hold him to the exact same standard.
@seawulf575 ”@zaku allow me to sum up your previous answer. You purposely avoided answering the simple question: Which law are you allowed to violate? You went on and on about all sorts of things but purposely avoided actually answering. Allowed by whom? , right in what sense and according to whom?…these are dodges to avoid answering the question.”
– NO! Your question is meaningless without saying what you mean by “are you allowed”!
“It is a painfully obvious question that intuitively answers these questions and you have to go to extremes to try acting like it isn’t clear. And that you go to those extremes is just pitifully obvious.”
– It may be obvious to someone blinded by whatever form or conservatism keeps you from seeing that your question is meaningless to me without saying what you mean, but it’s not obvious to me. I’m NOT “trying acting like it isn’t clear”! I actually have no idea what you think is so obvious, because the way you think is so lopsided to me that it’s upside-down, and it’s a great effort not to just write you off as an offensive ignorant toad, because I think you may not be intentionally trolling, but actually believe at least part of what you write, and I’m curious because I don’t get where you’re coming from.
“You then delve into the morality of the laws and how morally they are okay to break. You even spent paragraphs setting up the idea that your morality applies to every one and supersedes the law. Let me help you…it doesn’t.”
– Sorry to bore you trying to answer your questions. You mis-interpreted what I was saying, but oh well.
“You bring up Ollie North as an example of how Conservatives support or share your morality towards law. But you obviously don’t actually read what you write. Ollie North was convicted of 16 felonies. And he did time for breaking the law. No one says he shouldn’t have. He broke the law, he is worthy of the penalties. Sort of shoots your own statement in the butt, doesn’t it?”
– Um… no.
“The fact that after he is punished he goes on to do other things has no bearing on anything. It has no part in the question “which law are you allowed to violate?””
– Seems to me it’s relevant to how much conservatives actually respect the letter of the law. I could list many other examples of conservatives breaking laws and still being elected by other conservatives to public offices and held up as supposedly good conservative leaders, but that seems like a waste of time at this point.
“We talk about theft and again…you jump right onto morality. Do you see the trend here? Three times so far you have tried making your views of morality supersede laws. No wait…4 because you continue in with the morality as the diatribe continues. Or is it just a dodge? Pretty much works out the same in the end.”
– You’re the one asks about “are you allowed” without saying what you’re talking about. I tried answering thinking you probably at least partly mean morally, but I guess that’s just part of your ridiculous attempt to conclude that I’m somehow wrong about any of this.
“You try to mince words with the definition of Criminal. Typical of liberals. Let me help you: ...”
– Yeah, so those are the definitions, but no, I wasn’t trying to “mince words.”
“Any way you cut it, you are dodging and being convicted has no bearing on whether something is a crime or not, nor if the person breaking that law is a criminal.”
– Re-read the definitions you just quoted to me, smarty-pants. One of the main meanings of criminal, and the one you might want to stick to if you don’t want to catch a lawsuit, is the “has been legally convicted of a crime” part you quoted.
“You end with a series of comments that reiterate your idea that laws are variables depending on the morals of the criminal.”
– No. I wrote that the laws are one thing, and morality may be another. The Christian Bible even has a section on this (in Romans, I think).
“So you equated morals to the application of laws at least 6 times through out…”
– No, I pointed out that they were two different things… (but apparently you mis-read me at least that many times).
”... and you never did answer the question of “which law are you allowed to violate”.”
– That question is meaningless without saying what you mean by “allowed” – theoretically by the law? Practically by the absence of enforcement? Morally and if so, by whose morals?
If (as you seem to imply when you seem to assert that I’m a “liberal” (not according to me, but I imagine you don’t care) and that you’re somehow demonstrating some confusion of mine about the law), you mean legally, then your question is just stupidly obvious. Of course if the law says, as it does:
“You may not take a picture of a rabbit from January to April without an official permit.” (Wyoming)
Then I’m sure not allowed to do that, according to the law. Even though you call me a liberal and might rightly presume I think that law is utter bullshit and can rightly be ignored by everyone.
How do YOU feel about that one, from a moral point of view? How about from a practical point of view?
“So my follow up comment about the difference between liberals and conservatives holds true. Feel better now?”
– No, and no.