DiscussMormonism.com

Just so I don't get accused of derailing other threads. And continuing a conversation on another thread.

Gad wrote....

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 13, 2025 2:22 am

those numbers are also not demonstrated. But to nearly double that based on back-of-the-napkin guessing is pitiful.

We aren't talking about the Mormon church justifying fake numbers for members to believe in something which they more or less get something out of, whether it's true or not. Your number apologetics are targeted to stoke outrage and justify human right violations. Send them all to Guantanamo Bay! It's an emergency, the cost is 2.7 trillion; next year it will be 5 trillion! We don't have a choice!

that's what you're trying to do. Make the situation appear so dire that any and all actions to combat it, no matter how extreme and no matter how tangent are justified and necessary. Trump is a low life, but he's not Hitler, he's an opportunist pretending to be Hitler because he has 10s of millions of of people like you spinning each other up and demanding him to be as extreme as possible. That's what you folks want. The more unhinged, the more you folks cheer. There are real lives behind this and you're eating chips and enjoying the super bowl with your family while you push a button to send other families who have nothing to do with the Fentanyl problem to their doom.

Of course you don't care, if your life is good, then life is good. typical Christian and simplistic, and pathetic.

Do you really believe that 75 thousand people dying from drug overdoses a year is somehow not a major epidemic and a real crisis? What do you believe the monetary costs are Gad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tqu2ej8ewI

Trump is doing exactly what she said we would do, despite any bill, on pretty much the first day of his presidency. Biden and Harris (the border czar) had four years to go after this aggressively like Trump is now. They simply did not; they were either inept, or so beholding to their far left base they bowed down to them on all fours. in my opinion both along with other possible reasons. It has been only three weeks for Trump and he has done more to slow this mess down than Harris did her whole run as the border chief, even with here acknowledgement of an, using her own words in her four years, "epidemic" and "crisis."

Again 75 thousand people dying a year (200+ people a day) Gad. And also again, 55 thousand service personnel died in Vietnam over the 19 years we were involved. How many families are being ruined for life are there?

There are tough decisions being made now and many more to come, and collateral damage is and will happen; we are at war. Where as over the last four year Biden/Harris were simply tools and completely incompetent in regard to counter attacking the crisis and epidemic.

What is your solution to this epidemic Gad?

If only there were lots of other countries who have successfully combated drug epidemics, countries whose strategies we could emulate. Then again, those strategies might not involve demonizing brown people, so that won't work. Alas and Alack.

You're doubling down exactly as I've explained, Markk. If the last alarm bell wasn't loud enough, you sound the next alarm bell louder, all as a way to justify human rights violations. X is so extreme, we must do this terrible thing Y, even though Y has no relation to X.

Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do, and what a bunch of losers voted for him to do. He's mass deporting working individuals and families who have nothing to do with the Fentanyl crisis. Okay, that's not exactly what he said he was going to do, as he said they were targeting criminals, but I and others explained long ago that was a lie because there is no way to get the numbers that way. He's going for low-hanging fruit, which is sober, working people who show up every day and work. Up until now, you didn't need Fentanyl, you just need to whine, "by golly, they done broke the law!"

But mass deportation isn't that simple. Now he must look for long-term holding solutions, resembling concentration camps, employing options like Guantanamo Bay (while temporarily getting blocked, but you're on his side hoping it will happen) in a gigantic scape-goat operation very much like Germany blaming Jews for their problems in Nazi Germany. Consider the red-light cameras in LA. By golly, all those law breakers deserve the tickets! But it made no economic sense, and all those cameras were ripped down. Mass deportations make no economic sense. But he ran on the promise, which at the time was barely connected to drugs. Ceeboo didn't need drugs to justify it, he just cried, "they broke the law!" over and over to Res Ipsa. The financial costs will be enormous, and the costs to the detainees unprecedented in our time. Once those costs become a reality, something more serious than "they broke the law!" will need to be relied upon to justify it, and that's getting the scapegoating front and center. What are you doing about the Fentanyl crisis, Gad?

The first thing you need to do is explain how deporting sober, working people who show up to work everyday is going to do a damn thing to solve the Fentanyl problem. Threating Mexico with tariffs and Mexico sending troops to the border has a plausible chance of doing something. We could, at the very least, have a conversation about why that may or may not work. But Trump didn't run on the campaign promise of tariffs. Googled-eyed Christians at Trump rallies weren't holding up signs, "Mass Tariffs now!" They held up signs, "Mass Deportations Now!" Mass deportations is the campaign promise he ran on, and the campaign promise you are talking about in connection with "Trump doing what he said he was going to do". And you are talking about it in connection with the fentanyl crisis.

And so, Markk, your job is to explain how in the holy hell deporting working families is going to do a damn thing to stop fentanyl. In fact, its money wasted that could be spent on something productive that at least has a chance of stopping fentanyl. Let me make it clear as day: you don't need a solution to the fentanyl crisis, you need a justification for mass deportations.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 13, 2025 3:06 pm

You're doubling down exactly as I've explained, Markk. If the last alarm bell wasn't loud enough, you sound the next alarm bell louder, all as a way to justify human rights violations. X is so extreme, we must do this terrible thing Y, even though Y has no relation to X.

Lol....what I am more than doubling down is that there is a Fentanyl crisis, and we need to do everything we can to stop it. 75 thousand Americans dying each year is just not okay. I certainly welcome you to show me where I am justifying and or condoning human right violations with my support for aggressively battling our countries fentanyl epidemic.

You are just trying to create some sort of straw-man, a rather weak one, and honestly it hasn't even stood up, so it could fall.

X has nothing to do with Y in your formula. Illegal immigrants who are not part of the fentanyl epidemic, are still here illegally and deported for many different reasons, with the baseline being they are in our country illegally.

Under Clinton there were over 12 million deportations, under Bush over 10 million, under Obama just over 5 million, Trump's in his first term around 3 million, and under Biden somewhere around 5 million. I checked different sites and these numbers are fairly consistent.

My point, and question here is," did all these presidents violate the human rights of these illegal immigrants for deporting them?"

If so it begs that question, "should we eliminate all the borders in the name of human rights?"

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 13, 2025 3:06 pm

Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do, and what a bunch of losers voted for him to do. He's mass deporting working individuals and families who have nothing to do with the Fentanyl crisis. Okay, that's not exactly what he said he was going to do, as he said they were targeting criminals, but I and others explained long ago that was a lie because there is no way to get the numbers that way. He's going for low-hanging fruit, which is sober, working people who show up every day and work. Up until now, you didn't need Fentanyl, you just need to whine, "by golly, they done broke the law!"

Those are such kind words. But again, you are trying to insert your straw-man into this. He is deporting Immigrants for all the same reasons that Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden did. I hope he will do a better job, particularly with the criminals and those taking advantage of the system. This will also help the war on fentanyl if more efforts can be concentrated on this very separate issue.

But mass deportation isn't that simple. Now he must look for long-term holding solutions, resembling concentration camps, employing options like Guantanamo Bay (while temporarily getting blocked, but you're on his side hoping it will happen) in a gigantic scape-goat operation very much like Germany blaming Jews for their problems in Nazi Germany. Consider the red-light cameras in LA. By golly, all those law breakers deserve the tickets! But it made no economic sense, and all those cameras were ripped down. Mass deportations make no economic sense. But he ran on the promise, which at the time was barely connected to drugs. Ceeboo didn't need drugs to justify it, he just cried, "they broke the law!" over and over to Res Ipsa. The financial costs will be enormous, and the costs to the detainees unprecedented in our time. Once those costs become a reality, something more serious than "they broke the law!" will need to be relied upon to justify it, and that's getting the scapegoating front and center. What are you doing about the Fentanyl crisis, Gad?

Lol, well that was a rant.

But in regard to what I am doing? I pray for our country and leaders, I believe that is important. I support all those putting there lives on the line combating the issue. And I am deeply saddened and often at a loss for words for family and friends that are effected by the crisis. And I support the Trump administration efforts and commitment to try to save the lives of these Americans. I also worry about my grand children very much, and what they will have to deal with if it keeps getting worse.

In regard to comparing illegal immigration to Nazi Germany, I suggest a history lesson, but if you insist that enforcing existing immigration laws, like those other presidents I mentioned have,.... is somehow the same as revoking the citizenship of existing citizens and then sending them to death camps is the same....then we will certainly disagree, as would history.

The first thing you need to do is explain how deporting sober, working people who show up to work everyday is going to do a damn thing to solve the Fentanyl problem.

I never claimed such a thing, and I welcome you to show me where I stated that. That again, is your straw-man, I never claimed that

And so, Markk, your job is to explain how in the holy hell deporting working families is going to do a damn thing to stop fentanyl. In fact, its money wasted that could be spent on something productive that at least has a chance of stopping fentanyl. Let me make it clear as day: you don't need a solution to the fentanyl crisis, you need a justification for mass deportations.

Again a straw-man, I never said that...please show me where I said that. Lol, you seem to be arguing with yourself here.

Just one last time, and please focus, where did I say that deporting working families will stop fentanyl?

Markk, if you completely shut down the border tomorrow, as in - no commerce, no crossings, no tourism - no anything … will America’s fentanyl problem be resolved?

If not, what are your suggested next steps?

canpakes wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 14, 2025 4:50 am

Markk, if you completely shut down the border tomorrow, as in - no commerce, no crossings, no tourism - no anything ... will America’s fentanyl problem be resolved?

If not, what are your suggested next steps?

Of course not, I never said it would.

I'm no sure all the steps that will need to be taken, but one of the first steps is to get as much of the poison off the streets asap. Do you disagree? If one of your children or your wife, was addicted to fentanyl would you allow that person they get the drug to your home? Wouldn't you do everything in your power to keep that supplier and product away from them as they try to supply your loved one for profit? If they were in the country illegally would you report them and want them deported and/or arrested? Would you want the folks in charge to go after the suppliers, source of the product? I certainly would.

I would also get my child or wife help, the help they will need to hopefully recover, fully or in part. As a person of faith that would be one of my goals, it works for many in regard to addiction. Religious based groups have always been at the front lines. There are also great secular programs, and very effective to many. There are also some very expensive private programs that are successful, but again very expensive, and I would do that also if I could swing it.

In regard to our country it is basically the same "steps." We need to get as much of this crap away from these sick folks as we can, for me it is just common sense. We will need to find ways to get these folks help. Sadly they first want to get help, if they don't it just won't happen, it is impossible unless you lock them up. I know this from personal experience, with a once very close family member....maybe someday I can share the ongoing very tragic story. If the person does not want help, there are limited options and they are all very painful and they hurt, very deeply. It drains the family emotionally and financially. And another first step that I believe needs to happen, people need to understand this is a epidemic and we are basically at war. And often that is a slow step with personal family addiction, it takes time to learn that tough love is far too often is a reality for those dealing with a addicted family member.

This is not going to be easy for our country. There are going to be very hard choices, with hopefully a lot more victory's than failures. It sucks, but it is the reality of we have to deal with.

What are your steps Pakes?

Markk wrote:Lol....what I am more than doubling down is that there is a Fentanyl crisis, and we need to do everything we can to stop it.

Mass deportations won't do anything to stop it. And you again prove exactly what I'm saying. Spending billions to do "everything" when the crux of your "everything" will do nothing only proves that your motivations don't align with your stated goals. You're lying, in other words. Anyone who watched Trump rallies on YouTube knows that your anger and hatred towards "immigrants" (even among immigrants themselves) has nothing to do with the Fentanyl crisis. You know your lying, because you know Trump is a liar here; he repeatedly claimed that illegal immigrants generally speaking were criminals and insane people that we need to get out of here for public safety. You don't quite repeat that part of the message you and ceebs voted for.

75 thousand Americans dying each year is just not okay.

Then you should do something aside from mass deportations, because mass deportations won't even make a dent, it will only waste resources that could be used to solve the real problem. You are only making the fentanyl crisis worse. Not that you really care, because you are only suddenly worried about it as you also need to find an excuse for Trump.

Under Clinton there were over 12 million deportations,

You didn't check hard enough because this obviously isn't true. As I've said before, you don't know anything about things like inflation and immigration law. On the other hand, you do know more than I do about doing drugs.

did all these presidents violate the human rights of these illegal immigrants for deporting them?

Yes. But nothing like you're fixin' to do. First, previous presidents didn't conduct their operations as showmanship for a bunch of wicked and deranged google-eyed Christians crying for blood. The kind of anger behind Trump from stupid people will eventually justify unprecedenteed human rights violations. Second, the largest part of those violations will be from sending those arrested to Guantanamo Bay or other holding facilities where they can be indefinitely put out of view.

If so it begs that question, "should we eliminate all the borders in the name of human rights?"

Markk, "begging the question" refers to circular reasoning. It doesn't "beg the question." It raises the question. Stopping people at the border isn't the same thing as allowing them in, allowing them to establish their lives, and then panicking and kicking them out. And even worse would be allowing them in and then putting masses of them in jails out of sight of any kind of reasonable scrutiny for indefinite periods of time and with the public cheering for their doom. (that or sent back to regimes where they face execution)

As the right-wing farmers losing their workers have explained, illegal workers are an open secret because the US has never had a functional immigration policy (and it never will in my opinion). So yes, when they come here to work on farms and everyone from the farmers to the government to the consumers of the farm's products turn a blind eye, but then suddenly get worked up by an orange-haired demagogue and demand that they all be rounded up and sent back or confined for -- reasons -- that's when the real abuse comes in.

You're part of this Markk, you also turned a blind eye and let your coworkers think that what they were doing is okay. And now, you turn around and stab them 13 times in the back. "It's because of fentynal!" No it isn't. Rounding them up and sending to Guantanamo Bay is a major line crossing.

If you want to stop the flow of everything coming into the US, you need to shut down the border. Kicking people out who are working won't stop anything. In fact, it could make it worse. Trump can't shut down every business using illegals simultaneously. As thousands of workers are detained and business are left needing workers again, and ICE moves on to the next county, there is suddenly a big gap in supply and demand that could be filled by new border crossings.

Markk, let's say we spend the money to stop 50% of illegal immigration. How much of the supply of illegal fentanyl will that stop from coming into the country?

I ask because about 85% of fentanyl is trafficked by u.s. Citizens.
The other 15% is non-citizens, which includes both those here legally and those not here legally. Why not go after the fentanyl supply from citizens, if you really want to make a dent in supply?

Also, although I understand the emotions of cutting down the supply, will that help fight the epidemic most efficiently? If there are other ways to fight the epidemic, such as those focusing on the demand side, that are far less costly than immigration control of a very small percentage of the supply, would you consider those measures first?

Public service announcement: "begging the question". It's a standard expression, but it's kind of old-fashioned. It doesn't mean what it sounds like today, which would be something like "brings this question to mind". Instead it means a certain kind of bogus argument for a point ("the question") which is under debate.

The particular kind of bogus argument is like this. It starts by asking everyone to accept some big assumption. The assumption would—if only it were true—directly imply the conclusion one is trying to defend. The connection between the assumption and the conclusion may be so direct, in fact, that they are effectively just the same thing expressed in different words.

An example of a question-begging argument would be me trying to convince you that I am rich, by saying, "We all know that I'm wealthy, right? Well, just look at this dictionary. Says right here: if you're wealthy, you're rich. See? I'm rich." I make out that the only reason you don't believe that I'm rich is that you don't get the connection between wealth and richness. So, in case you don't believe the dictionary, I explain all about how wealth lets one behave like a rich person, and so on.

I never actually offer any evidence at all for my wealthiness, though. I just assume that we all take it for granted that I am wealthy. The whole reason we're talking is that you don't believe that I'm rich, and "wealthy" and "rich" are the same; but still I just ask you to agree that I'm wealthy, and pretend that the argument starts from that point. So in fact I'm only pretending to argue that I am rich, when I'm really just asking you to agree that I'm rich, without offering any real evidence or argument. I'm just begging you to agree with me, the way a beggar asks for money for nothing. "Come on, please, gimme this. Just agree."

That is begging the question. The requested assumption isn't always a literal synonym for the desired conclusion, like "wealthy" and "rich", but it's something that would quite directly imply the conclusion, and it's assumed without adequate justification. It focuses attention on something trivial while taking something huge just for granted, like trying to win a triathlon by starting half a mile from the finish line.

Begging the question is a kind of bogus argument that people often really do use. It's easy to beg a question without realising it, if you just haven't noticed how questionable one of your long-term assumptions really is. It's perfectly possible to beg a question even when you are actually right about it, if you just can't explain a big part of why your answer is true, because you don't understand that part, but have just taken it for granted.

So it's worth having a special name for this particular kind of bogus argument, since it so often comes up. It's kind of unfortunate that the traditional and established name for this fallacy, "begging the question", is one that is so easily misunderstood nowadays. It might be worth finding a new name for the concept.

It's worth bearing the concept in mind, because it makes one more cautious. If I'm sure something is true, because I have such a clear and simple argument for it, am I maybe just begging the question? Is my clear and simple argument taking for granted something that isn't clear and simple at all? At any rate this is my excuse, to all those who know very well what question begging means, for this pedantic little essay: it doesn't hurt any of us to think now and then about begging the question. Plus I have now spent enough time writing this that I have to go for supper and cannot write that last evaluation. Oh darn.