Dehumanizing people should not be allowed here.

Everyone that crossed the border illegally, which is who the term references, is an illegal just as Trump is a felon, right?

"The felon was elected president."

"The illegal was deported."
Reading is fundamental. What I said directly challenged the assumption that those were the only ones who were included in that term. They are the only ones that there is even a remote reason to do so, but, unless tried and convicted of a crime, like Trump was, that's an inappropriate term.

That's why it's okay to call the orange felon a felon.
 
Reading is fundamental. What I said directly challenged the assumption that those were the only ones who were included in that term. They are the only ones that there is even a remote reason to do so, but, unless tried and convicted of a crime, like Trump was, that's an inappropriate term.

That's why it's okay to call the orange felon a felon.
Got it. So we agree that it's okay to call Benito Cheeto a felon and it's okay to call someone here illegally an illegal?
 
Yes and I would be "a legal" by comparison.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that you have broken " minor" laws numerous times over the course of your life which would make you an "illegal"

going above the speed limit in your car, rolling through a stop sign, running a red light, smoking weed, underage buying beer with a fake ID, driving under the influence...
 
Well, 1) did they or did they not do something illegal and 2) when was the last time some non human thing did something illegal?

So, isn’t referring to an “illegal” as an “illegal” affirming the “illegal’s” humanity?

I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that you have broken " minor" laws numerous times over the course of your life which would make you an "illegal"

going above the speed limit in your car, rolling through a stop sign, running a red light, smoking weed, underage buying beer with a fake ID, driving under the influence...
Correct. By this dubious definition, everyone on this board is "an illegal". Yet somehow it only gets applied to a select group of people and happens to only be applied by those seeking to demean that group. Funny how that happens, right?
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that you have broken " minor" laws numerous times over the course of your life which would make you an "illegal"

going above the speed limit in your car, rolling through a stop sign, running a red light, smoking weed, underage buying beer with a fake ID, driving under the influence...
Of course I've done things that are illegal. Illegal, as relates to people crossing the border illegally, certainly seems to be a shortening of the term "illegal alien" or "illegal border crosser", kind of like you would shorten "someone who speeds" to "speeder" or "am not" got shortened to "ain't".
 
Last edited:
Of course I've done things that are illegal. Illegal, as relates to people crossing the border illegally, certainly seems to be a shortening of the term "illegal alien" or "illegal border crosser", kind of like you would shorten "someone who speeds" to "speeder" or "am not" got shortened to "ain't".
You've been informed of this before and have paid no attention, but the vast majority of people you call "illegal" in fact have authorization to be here and have committed no crimes.

That's another problem with the phrase "illegals." It's just factually inaccurate and people like you literally don't know the difference.

Before you go warbling on again with your exceedingly dubious comprehension of the language (there are, after all, many professional writers on this board and when you are facing off against all of them you are almost surely wrong), answer me this. Which of the following people are illegals?

A. A border crosser apprehended five miles inside the border by CBP and detained until a hearing
B. A border crosser apprehended five miles inside the border by CBP and given a hearing date and parole
C. A tourist who overstays the tourist visa
D. An asylum seeker who presented at a port, and was given a hearing date for the asylum claim
E. People from Caribbean islands who land in Florida on a boat and walk ashores
F. People from Caribbean islands who take a boat to Mexico, land in Mexico and cross the border into the US seeking asylum.
 
You've been informed of this before and have paid no attention, but the vast majority of people you call "illegal" in fact have authorization to be here and have committed no crimes.

That's another problem with the phrase "illegals." It's just factually inaccurate and people like you literally don't know the difference.

Before you go warbling on again with your exceedingly dubious comprehension of the language (there are, after all, many professional writers on this board and when you are facing off against all of them you are almost surely wrong), answer me this. Which of the following people are illegals?

A. A border crosser apprehended five miles inside the border by CBP and detained until a hearing
B. A border crosser apprehended five miles inside the border by CBP and given a hearing date and parole
C. A tourist who overstays the tourist visa
D. An asylum seeker who presented at a port, and was given a hearing date for the asylum claim
E. People from Caribbean islands who land in Florida on a boat and walk ashores
F. People from Caribbean islands who take a boat to Mexico, land in Mexico and cross the border into the US seeking asylum.
You are attempting to convolute the discussion and I am not going to participate.

The claim was that, on its face and regardless of accuracy, "illegal", when used as a noun, is inherently dehumanizing. You are now trying to argue accuracy, which is not relevant in a conversation about something being inherently dehumanizing.
 
You are attempting to convolute the discussion and I am not going to participate.

The claim was that, on its face and regardless of accuracy, "illegal", when used as a noun, is inherently dehumanizing. You are now trying to argue accuracy, which is not relevant in a conversation about something being inherently dehumanizing.
To the contrary, most slurs claim accuracy but are not. If you want to know whether a label is inherently dehumanizing, one important factor is whether it has a factual basis. If people are being stereotyped and lumped together ways that are not accurate, it strengthens the inference that it's dehumanizing.

Whether you like it or not, my assertion is factual. If you take a tour of derogatory, dehumanizing phrases, you will find that most of them are inaccurate in precisely this way: it takes the worst qualities of one putative member of a group and projects them on all, whether or not the group is a sensible classification.
 
To the contrary, most slurs claim accuracy but are not. If you want to know whether a label is inherently dehumanizing, one important factor is whether it has a factual basis. If people are being stereotyped and lumped together ways that are not accurate, it strengthens the inference that it's dehumanizing.

Whether you like it or not, my assertion is factual. If you take a tour of derogatory, dehumanizing phrases, you will find that most of them are inaccurate in precisely this way: it takes the worst qualities of one putative member of a group and projects them on all, whether or not the group is a sensible classification.
Do you have an issue with labeling someone "illegal" (noun) if they are known to be in the country illegally?
 
Do you have an issue with labeling someone "illegal" (noun) if they are known to be in the country illegally?
I take it from this question that you can't answer the questions above. Which is fine. Just preserving it for the record.

Yes, I do have a problem with that, for the same reason that I object to using deplorable as a noun even though it clearly is an accurate label in most cases.

It's like I said above: accuracy is a factor. It's not the only factor. There are people in Africa and South America who live the old hunter-gatherer life style. Many of them have actually thrown spears. But even as applied to them, spearch*** is still a horribly offensive term.
 
I take it from this question that you can't answer the questions above. Which is fine. Just preserving it for the record.

Yes, I do have a problem with that, for the same reason that I object to using deplorable as a noun even though it clearly is an accurate label in most cases.

It's like I said above: accuracy is a factor. It's not the only factor. There are people in Africa and South America who live the old hunter-gatherer life style. Many of them have actually thrown spears. But even as applied to them, spearch*** is still a horribly offensive term.
Accuracy isn't a factor for you because, either way, you are not okay with using it. So, like I said, the technicality of being accurate was irrelevant to the conversation, which is why I did not engage
 
A Trump voter asked me during his first term what I thought we should do about immigration. I said first we need to understand that we need immigrants for the economy, as dwindling birth rates is a big issue.
But I said other than that, we need to think about immigrants as people, and God’s children (for the Christians), and start from that place. I didn’t (and still don’t) like the USA’s stance on immigrants to be, “they are bringing rape and murder, and I assume some are good people.”
I think the perception of immigrants from the right have gotten a lot worse in Trump’s second term.

And use whatever term you want. It’s easy to spot who is dehumanizing immigrants. But I would say if you are going to refer to anyone as “illegal,” then you need to be right about their legal status. I see posters here get it wrong time and time again even long after being corrected.
 
A Trump voter asked me during his first term what I thought we should do about immigration. I said first we need to understand that we need immigrants for the economy, as dwindling birth rates is a big issue.
But I said other than that, we need to think about immigrants as people, and God’s children (for the Christians), and start from that place. I didn’t (and still don’t) like the USA’s stance on immigrants to be, “they are bringing rape and murder, and I assume some are good people.”
I think the perception of immigrants from the right have gotten a lot worse in Trump’s second term.

And use whatever term you want. It’s easy to spot who is dehumanizing immigrants. But I would say if you are going to refer to anyone as “illegal,” then you need to be right about their legal status. I see posters here get it wrong time and time again even long after being corrected.
I’ve said it countless times. Trump’s ultimate goal is not to stop illegal immigration. His ultimate goal is to stop all immigration. To him, all immigrants are illegal, aside from a very select set of inhabitants from paler-skinned countries.
 
I’ve said it countless times. Trump’s ultimate goal is not to stop illegal immigration. His ultimate goal is to stop all immigration. To him, all immigrants are illegal, aside from a very select set of inhabitants from paler-skinned countries.
I think there's a buy yourself white plan available.
 
Accuracy isn't a factor for you because, either way, you are not okay with using it. So, like I said, the technicality of being accurate was irrelevant to the conversation, which is why I did not engage
Yeah, people can form opinions based on a multiplicity of factors. But you do you.
 
How much extra if you're female or gay?
It will be like buying a car.

There will be a menu of options and upgrades:

1) Non-white $10M
2) Non-male $8M
3) Non-Christian $6M

At the end you have to add up all of your cost for the final sum.
So a brown trans female atheist would probably be closer to $40M.

There will always be the white male Christian in demand degreed person who gets the package deal of $2.5M.
 
It will be like buying a car.

There will be a menu of options and upgrades:

1) Non-white $10M
2) Non-male $8M
3) Non-Christian $6M

At the end you have to add up all of your cost for the final sum.
So a brown trans female atheist would probably be closer to $40M.

There will always be the white male Christian in demand degreed person who gets the package deal of $2.5M.
Nah. He's not going to put principle ahead of profit.
 
Back
Top