Jordan Peterson

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Seattle, Jan 27, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Can but won't?
    So even though the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity got its funding through its parent CFPB, the CFPB couldn't do it on its own?
    Enforce the laws?
    Bill of Rights applies to citizens.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,906
    Too late.
    Not without money and resources etc.
    Which means it has to apply to residents, most of it. Otherwise, it wouldn't apply to citizens (the determination and recognition of citizenship is part of it. You have the right to an attorney, and habeus corpus, before you have been identified as a citizen, or you don't have any way of establishing your citizenship).
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    As an excuse for stifling dissent, it's disingenuous. In fact activism itself, and all sorts of movements for civil rights make use of civil disobedience to some degree. You know, the same civil rights movements we now erect statues to honor?
    A little. Obligation doesn't just mean that non-citizens must obey laws, but that our government has obligations to them to respect their right to, for instance, due process.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    How's it too late to enforce the law?
    The OFLEO got its funding and resources from its parent department, the CFPB.
    Do you think those resources disappeared?
    Legal protections do not extend to "the success of refugees from Muslim countries"or "success of young Hispanic immigrants". The law isn't in the guaranteeing success business. Not even the must accept refugees or illegal immigrants business.
    Whose dissent did you not hear?
    Isn't civil disobedience is still breaking the law?
    You didn't mean to imply that the US had an obligation to "the success of refugees from Muslim countries"or "success of young Hispanic immigrants"?
     
  8. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    I'm not saying it's totally effective, just that "law and order" is often a tool of despots and wanna-be fascists like Trump.
    Some things are more important than breaking minor laws.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,906
    Let violation go too long, it already hasn't been enforced - you face all the consequences of nonenforcement, and gain none of the benefits of enforcement.
    Nor do they extend to the "success" of citizens.
    Not their success, their persons.
    If you don't extend Constitutional and other such protections to all residents, you deny them to those who are citizens.
     
  10. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Are perceived efforts are more important than actual results?
    Does that make a "law and order" argument inherently wrong? Or can both be true?
     
  11. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    What consequences of non-enforcement?
    What benefits of enforcement are not gained?
    Then how can "our current president ... currently [be] preventing the success"?
    By not allowing them to stay here? Isn't that a right exclusive to citizens?
     
  12. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    I think the actual results will be ignoring the real problem of police violence and focusing on a symptom, angry people. It might not increase police violence, but it won't help either. And we know it comes from racism.
    I don't think Americans want anarchy, so appeals to law and order in this context are wrong, yes. You don't get to pretend context doesn't matter.
     
  13. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    How do we know that?
    Your prerogative, I guess.
     
  14. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    Because Trump is a racist.
     
  15. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    How do you know that?
    Is that guilt by association, or are you saying Trump micromanages police enforcement?
     
  16. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    Association with whom? He's racist enough on his own, from housing discrimination, to the central park five, birtherism, calling Mexicans rapists, banning Muslims, implying Nazis were good people, referring to shithole countries, mishandling Puerto Rico, complaining about protesting blacks in the NFL, his racist friends Joe Arpaio and Roy Moore.. I mean how much more evidence do you need?

    How about a quote?
    “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”
    Former hotel executive for Trump
     
  17. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    The justice department has a huge influence on law enforcement. For instance Trump is allowing the militarization of the police.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,906
    Not my quote.
    Whatever they are. Short version: the entire present situation, everything bad about it. Had the law been enforced, it would not exist.
    Yes - that's why we need all this special legal and legislative attention, including some way to bestow citizenship. I'm thinking some kind of setup modeled on the way citizenship was granted to the Red residents - that was 1924, with voting rights finalized in 1957.

    What else you going to do - deport them to somewhere they've never lived, don't know the language?
     
  19. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    You sure like to infer motive. Sure you're not a Christian?
    Yes, quoting an associate to infer guilt is the guilt by association fallacy.
    Local law enforcement? Why didn't Obama stop the police violence?
    Then why were you arguing it?
    Very vague.
    Reward illegal activity?
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,906
    I wasn't.
    There's half a million different situations involved.
    No reward is involved. Also, no illegal activity by the children - the employers, teachers, doctors, etc, have been behaving illegally, but not the kids. So the question of whether punishment set aside is a reward for their illegal activity is a question about American citizens's illegal activity.
     
  21. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    You started arguing against my response to it here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/jordan-peterson.160498/page-2#post-3502057
    But not a single one that you can detail?
    Both can be true.
    Employers, yes. School admin, yes. And should be penalized. But that isn't the responsibility of teachers, and would violate the oath of doctors.
    The kids' status is illegal. Two illegal acts don't somehow become legal. Someone giving them a job doesn't make them, or their children, legal immigrants.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,906
    That's not the same as arguing for that quote, which I did not do.
    I don't want to deflect the argument.
    But they aren't, in this case.
    That's one illegal status per kid, and dozens of illegal acts by citizens of the US per kid.
    Really. That's lots of punishing. I doubt there's a major school system or public utility or temp agency in the country with clean hands here.
     
  23. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Or can't.
    According to you.
    One plus dozens of illegal acts don't somehow become legal either.
    And?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page