Should the government take away my children if I deliberately involve them in ...

[ok doser]

It depends ...

well, it was asked as a generality, but you wanted to get into specifics

how about this:



Is the United States justified in protecting its borders?


for example - I live about four miles from the Canadian border - the border patrol presence around here is constant - on the river, on the roads

is that a justifiable responsibility for the US government to undertake?

 

[Tinark]

"Decent people do not inflict such heartache and trauma on others who are peacefully trying to move into a new political jurisdiction. Decent people refuse to countenance such actions. Decent people renounce such actions. And decent people do not hide behind “It’s the law!” to justify such cruelty when the so-called “law” is nothing more than legislation."

https://cafehayek.com/2018/06/law-legislation-trump-administrations-cruelty.html

Well said

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's good to see you back, Doser.

Yes, if you bring your kids to the heist, they need to be removed from the parent's "care".

If a criminal brings his children (and by children, I mean under the age of accountability) with him to commit a crime, and forces them to participate, then he should be tried, and upon due conviction, be sentenced to death by tying a millstone around his neck and be tossed into the deep. (Luke 17:1-2)

If the children (and here by children, I mean those over the age of accountability) willingly participate, then whatever the crime is, they should all be tried, and upon due conviction, punished accordingly.

 

[Tinark]

If a criminal brings his children (and by children, I mean under the age of accountability) with him to commit a crime, and forces them to participate, then he should be tried, and upon due conviction, be sentenced to death by tying a millstone around his neck and be tossed into the deep. (Luke 17:1-2)

If the children (and here by children, I mean those over the age of accountability) willingly participate, then whatever the crime is, they should all be tried, and upon due conviction, punished accordingly.

So would your bible would argue that a slave who escapes with his children should be put to death if the law prohibits slaves running away?

This is why the bible should not be used as a basis for morality. Thankfully, the majority of people in society agree and do not use the bible to get their morals.

 

[Tinark]

well, no

it would be like taking away children from parents who drag their children along through Chicago's ghetto streets on a Saturday night in August while trying to find bread to steal

Why is peacefully attempting to enter another political jurisdiction to provide a better life for one's children equivalent to taking your children through the streets of the Chicago "ghetto" at night?

 

[JudgeRightly]

So would your bible would argue that a slave who escapes with his children should be put to death if the law prohibits slaves running away?

Slavery based on kidnapping is wrong because kidnapping itself is wrong. Someone who kidnaps should be, upon conviction, executed.

However, slavery as a form of punishment for crime or as a deterrent for one's enemies is just. In such cases where restitution is the punishment, but the criminal cannot afford to pay their debt, then they would be put into indentured servitude for 6 years, or until the debt is paid off, whichever comes first (separate from the victim, of course), and all the proceeds of his labor go to pay off the victim of his crime. On the seventh year, he is released and any remaining debt is wiped.

That is what the Bible says. It also says for slaves to honor their masters, and for masters to not mistreat their slaves (talking about slavery as a deterrent for war).

This is why the bible should not be used as a basis for morality.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. You should avoid using it.

Thankfully, the majority of people in society agree and do not use the bible to get their morals.

Thankfully, appeal to popularity is also a logical fallacy. You should avoid using it as well.

 

[ok doser]

...others who are peacefully trying to move into a new political jurisdiction...

there are legal mechanisms in place for immigrating


and we're not talking about "political jurisdictions", we're talking about crossing national borders


and I can't think of a single modern nation, offhand, that doesn't protect its borders

can you?

 

[ok doser]

btw - you don't see the contradictions of "peacefully" breaking the law? :freak:

 

[ok doser]

"I think I'll peacefully rob that bank I've been casing"

any problems with that?

 

[The Barbarian]

There's a reason why the FBI distinguishes non-violent and violent crime. Of course you can peacefully violate the law. Civil rights groups did it constantly as a way of overturning laws that were morally indefensible. Civil disobedience is exactly peacefully violating the law.

When Donald Trump was forced to pay back all the people who signed up for his fake "university", he did so, because he broke the law. But he did it peacefully, not violently.

 

[jgarden]

Thread: Should the government take away my children if I deliberately involve them in ...

If the Republicans think that supporting a policy of which 66% of the American electorate disapprove will be a "winning strategy," they will get what they deserve in November!

While the government has been willing to release pictures of young males, those of females, toddlers and babies have been noticeably absent!

 

[quip]

try this one, danoh


Is a state, in general, justified in protecting its borders?

As long as it doesn't personally affect you in any direct manner....why not? :idunno:

Of course, I'll still assume you desire to limit the role of the state....where your interest are primarily concerned...correct?

 

[intojoy]

... criminal activity?



As a general principle




looks like I can't set this up as a poll, so for the hundreds of regular posters who are still participating here, just answer with a quick "yes" or "no"

Well according to the Obama’s, it takes a village to raise everybody’s kids so..I guess yes take them out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tinark]

there are legal mechanisms in place for immigrating


and we're not talking about "political jurisdictions", we're talking about crossing national borders


and I can't think of a single modern nation, offhand, that doesn't protect its borders

can you?

You are shifting the goalposts. I'm not against having immigration laws and taking reasonable efforts to stop illegal immigration. I am completely against this cruel separation policy, only recently enacted by the Trump admin a couple months ago.

The resolution to this madness is obvious: keep the families together and, if they need to be deported, deport them together.

 

[Tinark]

Slavery based on kidnapping is wrong because kidnapping itself is wrong. Someone who kidnaps should be, upon conviction, executed.

However, slavery as a form of punishment for crime or as a deterrent for one's enemies is just. In such cases where restitution is the punishment, but the criminal cannot afford to pay their debt, then they would be put into indentured servitude for 6 years, or until the debt is paid off, whichever comes first (separate from the victim, of course), and all the proceeds of his labor go to pay off the victim of his crime. On the seventh year, he is released and any remaining debt is wiped.

That is what the Bible says. It also says for slaves to honor their masters, and for masters to not mistreat their slaves (talking about slavery as a deterrent for war).



Begging the question is a logical fallacy. You should avoid using it.



Thankfully, appeal to popularity is also a logical fallacy. You should avoid using it as well.

We are so far apart on what is moral and just it isn't worth having any further conversation. I consider any form of slavery to be wicked and I will fight with considerable effort to stop it from being allowed when I can.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Tinark]

btw - you don't see the contradictions of "peacefully" breaking the law? :freak:

Peacefully: using no violence against any individual, and not taking or damaging their property.

Crossing an imaginary line in the dirt is neither violence nor theft nor damaging to any individual. It is a victimless crime.

 

[Tinark]

"I think I'll peacefully rob that bank I've been casing"

any problems with that?

That is theft of property. It victimizes the owners of the cash who become deprived of it after a successful theft.

Forcefully taking someone's property is not in any way a peaceful action.

 

[jgarden]

Thread: Should the government take away my children if I deliberately involve them in ...

There is a very real concern that with all the government agencies involved, the government's ability to connect children with their parents will erode over time - leading to the adults being deported while their offspring remain trapped in a bureaucratic limbo!

 

[intojoy]

Thread: Should the government take away my children if I deliberately involve them in ...

There is a very real concern that with all the government agencies involved, the government's ability to connect children with their parents will erode over time - leading to the adults being deported while their offspring remain trapped in a bureaucratic limbo!

It takes a village man. Calm down


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jgarden]

It takes a village man. Calm down

Despite the protests by the President to the contrary, the current Chief of Staff, Attorney General and senior WH advisors are already on the record stating that this is all part of a deliberate effort to discourage illegal immigration!

What has been left unsaid, but clearly implied, is that the President now intends to make funding for the Wall as the price he intends to extract from the Republican majorities in Congress, to make this political liability disappear before the 2018 Interims!