The reality is, you have asserted that you know undocumented workers are hired and there is no other way to do it. To hide behind a technicality now is nothing more than a facile excuse to protect those committing the crimes.
LOL, and you have no idea who is illegal or not? Where do you live Marcus? I gave you a link to send if you "suspect" someone as being illegal.
I have a few friends I know for sure that were or are illegal, good people, and I would never turn them in, so call me a hypocrite, I concede that. I did help one, one of my best friends, after he was arrested and detained in a camp in Arizona, get a lawyer (5k) and he now has a green card after a long process.
As far as hiding behind there is an organized network of cartels, trafficking humans and supplying them with fake documents to buck the system, at thousands and thousand of dollars, is just you sticking your head in the sand.
What is your solution Marcus? Or, just concede your hypocrisy here. It is easy to criticize others for their solutions to problems, and hypocrisy to not counter with your solution to that same issue. I am sure that is also some sort of fallacy.
Lol...I love google A.I., I just googled if it was a fallacy and it came back with:
When someone criticizes your solution to a problem without offering their own opinion or alternative solution, this is often considered a logical fallacy called "nitpicking" or a form of "ignoratio elenchi" (missing the point), as they are focusing on flaws in your proposal without providing a constructive alternative to address the issue at hand.
Off topic but as I try to wrap my head around just what A.I. is and what it will mean and do with quantum computing, I don't know if it is good or bad....but so far I like it, I hope I don't regret saying that.
What is your solution Marcus?
Lol. A.I. is not your friend. If an argument is considered fallacious, it means it is using an invalid method of reasoning. Criticism of something as an argument is not by definition a logical fallacy, whether you provide an alternative solution or not.
You are inconsistent in how you approach the issue of immigration, and it belies your devotion to the law that you have argued in this thread. You make excuses for those who break the law by giving jobs to undocumented workers, but you want deportation rigorously enforced.
I did help one, one of my best friends, after he was arrested and detained in a camp in Arizona, get a lawyer (5k) and he now has a green card after a long process.
Aside from the obvious humanitarian advantages, wouldn’t doing this instead of mass deportations make much more economic sense? You’d have a viable employee who has become a taxpaying citizen. Win-win, right?
Instead, we find ourselves watching our ‘leader’ instead choose to use public spectacle, dehumanization and revenge to tackle the problem, so that his base can get a laugh out of it.
My wife is a HR manger for a medium sized (120-150 accountants and admin) accounting firm, and served on SHRM boards off and on. I pick her brain a a lot. I was asking her about this, this morning and she said the only real way to know fore sure, 100%, is to have ICE do a audit.
Right. The standard is not to be 100% certain, but to practice due diligence.
I started a new thread I would be interested to see your solutions. I hope you join in and offer your insight.
It's not rocket science. We need (and I mean need) migrant workers, so offering reasonable avenues to make those who are undocumented ... well, unundocumented would be a no-brainer if it weren't for xenophobia. It makes sure they are paying their taxes and also grant an opportunity to vet these folks. Mass deportations are counterproductive to those ends. They also tend to be kind of evil (separating families, etc.), but c'mon: what's a little racial oppression among friends?
LOL, and you have no idea who is illegal or not? Where do you live Marcus? I gave you a link to send if you "suspect" someone as being illegal.
I have a few friends I know for sure that were or are illegal, good people, and I would never turn them in, so call me a hypocrite, I concede that. I did help one, one of my best friends, after he was arrested and detained in a camp in Arizona, get a lawyer (5k) and he now has a green card after a long process.
As far as hiding behind there is an organized network of cartels, trafficking humans and supplying them with fake documents to buck the system, at thousands and thousand of dollars, is just you sticking your head in the sand.
What is your solution Marcus? Or, just concede your hypocrisy here. It is easy to criticize others for their solutions to problems, and hypocrisy to not counter with your solution to that same issue. I am sure that is also some sort of fallacy.
Lol...I love google A.I., I just googled if it was a fallacy and it came back with:
When someone criticizes your solution to a problem without offering their own opinion or alternative solution, this is often considered a logical fallacy called "nitpicking" or a form of "ignoratio elenchi" (missing the point), as they are focusing on flaws in your proposal without providing a constructive alternative to address the issue at hand.
Off topic but as I try to wrap my head around just what A.I. is and what it will mean and do with quantum computing, I don't know if it is good or bad....but so far I like it, I hope I don't regret saying that.
What is your solution Marcus?
Lol. A.I. is not your friend. If an argument is considered fallacious, it means it is using an invalid method of reasoning. Criticism of something as an argument is not by definition a logical fallacy, whether you provide an alternative solution or not.
You are inconsistent in how you approach the issue of immigration, and it belies your devotion to the law that you have argued in this thread. You make excuses for those who break the law by giving jobs to undocumented workers, but you want deportation rigorously enforced.
What is your solution? Why are you afraid to offer your solutions to what you are criticizing? You can criticize me all you like but, right or wrong, at least I am open and honest with what I believe.
My guess is that you are afraid to say what your solution is, because it might compliment much of what Trump is doing, and that you cannot do.
Lol. A.I. is not your friend. If an argument is considered fallacious, it means it is using an invalid method of reasoning. Criticism of something as an argument is not by definition a logical fallacy, whether you provide an alternative solution or not.
You are inconsistent in how you approach the issue of immigration, and it belies your devotion to the law that you have argued in this thread. You make excuses for those who break the law by giving jobs to undocumented workers, but you want deportation rigorously enforced.
What is your solution? Why are you afraid to offer your solutions to what you are criticizing? You can criticize me all you like but, right or wrong, at least I am open and honest with what I believe.
My guess is that you are afraid to say what your solution is, because it might compliment much of what Trump is doing, and that you cannot do.
And that's a logical fallacy, unlike the one that you erroneously suggested to your A.I., which it dutifully (and also erroneously) parroted back to you.
If you have to keep announcing you're open and honest, you're not. Stop posting like mentalgymnast. It's exhausting.
What is your solution? Why are you afraid to offer your solutions to what you are criticizing? You can criticize me all you like but, right or wrong, at least I am open and honest with what I believe.
My guess is that you are afraid to say what your solution is, because it might compliment much of what Trump is doing, and that you cannot do.
And that's a logical fallacy, unlike the one that you erroneously suggested to your A.I., which it dutifully (and also erroneously) parroted back to you.
If you have to keep announcing you're open and honest, you're not. Stop posting like mentalgymnast. It's exhausting.
Well, we will disagree on that one. It is easy to criticize others for their ideologies, while refusing to speak of your own. There is a lot of that on this thread.
And that's a logical fallacy, unlike the one that you erroneously suggested to your A.I., which it dutifully (and also erroneously) parroted back to you.
If you have to keep announcing you're open and honest, you're not. Stop posting like mentalgymnast. It's exhausting.
Well, we will disagree on that one. It is easy to criticize others for their ideologies, while refusing to speak of your own. There is a lot of that on this thread.
You disagree on what? That you asked A.I. a leading question, got an erroneous answer but still believe it because you really, really want it to be true??! Good grief. That's just ridiculous. But sure, make up your own definitions.
Well, we will disagree on that one. It is easy to criticize others for their ideologies, while refusing to speak of your own. There is a lot of that on this thread.
You disagree on what? That you asked A.I. a leading question, got an erroneous answer but still believe it because you really, really want it to be true??! Good grief. That's just ridiculous. But sure, make up your own definitions.
That A.I. was wrong you are a "nitpicker." The question is about solutions for an epidemic with many nuances that is costing us a lot of money and more importantly hundreds of thousand of lives, and you refuse to engage in a open conversation offering your ideologies and solutions as opposed, while finding dumb things to nitpick, just as A.I. said. That is what I disagree on.
So go ahead and nitpick away or offer your solutions against those you criticize.
My wife is a HR manger for a medium sized (120-150 accountants and admin) accounting firm, and served on SHRM boards off and on. I pick her brain a a lot. I was asking her about this, this morning and she said the only real way to know fore sure, 100%, is to have ICE do a audit.
Right. The standard is not to be 100% certain, but to practice due diligence.
If we are honest, in business, "due diligence" is a code word for CYA and falls under Risk Management. If you are familiar with government contracts and public works payroll then you know that to be true. My guess is you are a PE, or PM. I have been there. These days I am more of a nuts and bolts guys, but CYA, especially in the public arena, after, but especially safety, is what we do.
I suppose I’m slightly confused. Fentanyl seems to get into the USA via legitimate shipping routes originating in Mexico. Hidden within legitimate cargo, or labelling it as if it was legitimate cargo. That seems to be 98% of the problem.
Given that the Mexican cartels are unlikely to stop sending their fentanyl loads because the USA asked them nicely, perhaps the USA needs to do better at scrutinising incoming freight that originated in Mexico.
It’s lucrative business for the Cartels because fentanyl is aged to get hold of legitimately, and there is a demand for it. As Gadianton suggests, the other solution is to destroy the market by making it easily available, legitimately, in safer dosages with more oversight, for an amount that makes it unprofitable for the cartels to compete.
If you remove one cartel from the business, or even one country from the business by invading Mexico say, another country’s cartels will simply fill the vacuum.
You have to find a way of stopping Americans funding the illegal fentanyl business. You have to disrupt the market. The American public ain't’t gonna stop buying it illicitly until you give them a cheaper alternative.
If you want the real culprits in all of this, go after the Big Pharma companies that got Americans addicted to opioids in the first place. They seem to be the root cause of all this.
It’s akin to the mass shootings problem. The root cause is the gun industry. But there’s too much money to be made to go after them.
I think the American governments lack the will to go after the root causes. Because the people that put them into the government in the first place are the ones making money from Big Pharma, the gun industry, etc.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
