Jordan Peterson

[Vociferous]

Sure.

Can but won't?

Not without money, resources, and upper level support.

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?

Too late for that. They break the law by breathing, and have since they were babies. So now what?

Enforce the laws?

Yes. Almost all of them, actually, in the Bill of Rights, and especially habeus corpus outside of it.

Bill of Rights applies to citizens.

 

[iceaura]

Enforce the laws?

Too late.

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?

Not without money and resources etc.

Bill of Rights applies to citizens.

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).

 

[spidergoat]

What's wrong with law and order?

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?

Anyone in a country, any country, much abide by its laws. No obligations to non-citizens are spelled out.
Are you conflating the two?

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.

 

[Vociferous]

Too late.

How's it too late to enforce the law?

Not without money and resources etc.

The OFLEO got its funding and resources from its parent department, the CFPB.
Do you think those resources disappeared?

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).

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.

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?

Whose dissent did you not hear?
Isn't civil disobedience is still breaking the law?

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.

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"?

 

[spidergoat]

Whose dissent did you not hear?

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.

Isn't civil disobedience is still breaking the law?

Some things are more important than breaking minor laws.

 

[iceaura]

How's it too late to enforce the law?

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.

Legal protections do not extend to "the success of refugees from Muslim countries"or "success of young Hispanic immigrants".

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.

 

[Vociferous]

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.

Are perceived efforts are more important than actual results?

Some things are more important than breaking minor laws.

Does that make a "law and order" argument inherently wrong? Or can both be true?

 

[Vociferous]

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.

What consequences of non-enforcement?
What benefits of enforcement are not gained?

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.

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?

 

[spidergoat]

Are perceived efforts are more important than actual results?

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.

Does that make a "law and order" argument inherently wrong? Or can both be true?

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.

 

[Vociferous]

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.

How do we know that?

I don't think Americans want anarchy, so appeals to law and order in this context are wrong, yes.

Your prerogative, I guess.

 

[spidergoat]

How do we know that?

Because Trump is a racist.

 

[Vociferous]

Because Trump is a racist.

How do you know that?
Is that guilt by association, or are you saying Trump micromanages police enforcement?

 

[spidergoat]

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

 

[spidergoat]

are you saying Trump micromanages police enforcement?

The justice department has a huge influence on law enforcement. For instance Trump is allowing the militarization of the police.

 

[iceaura]

Then how can "our current president ... currently [be] preventing the success"?

Not my quote.

What consequences of non-enforcement?
What benefits of enforcement are not gained?

Whatever they are. Short version: the entire present situation, everything bad about it. Had the law been enforced, it would not exist.

By not allowing them to stay here? Isn't that a right exclusive to citizens?

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?

 

[Vociferous]

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?

You sure like to infer motive. Sure you're not a Christian?

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

Yes, quoting an associate to infer guilt is the guilt by association fallacy.

The justice department has a huge influence on law enforcement. For instance Trump is allowing the militarization of the police.

Local law enforcement? Why didn't Obama stop the police violence?

Not my quote.

Then why were you arguing it?

Whatever they are. Short version: the entire present situation, everything bad about it. Had the law been enforced, it would not exist.

Very vague.

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?

Reward illegal activity?

 

[iceaura]

Then why were you arguing it?

I wasn't.

Very vague.

There's half a million different situations involved.

Reward illegal activity?

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.

 

[Vociferous]

I wasn't.

You started arguing against my response to it here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/jordan-peterson.160498/page-2#post-3502057

There's half a million different situations involved.

But not a single one that you can detail?

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.

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.

 

[iceaura]

You started arguing against my response to it here:

That's not the same as arguing for that quote, which I did not do.

But not a single one that you can detail?

I don't want to deflect the argument.

Both can be true.

But they aren't, in this case.

The kids' status is illegal. Two illegal acts don't somehow become legal.

That's one illegal status per kid, and dozens of illegal acts by citizens of the US per kid.

Employers, yes. School admin, yes. And should be penalized.

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.

 

[Vociferous]

I don't want to deflect the argument.

Or can't.

But they aren't, in this case.

According to you.

That's one illegal status per kid, and dozens of illegal acts by citizens of the US per kid.

One plus dozens of illegal acts don't somehow become legal either.

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.

And?