SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Don't get it.
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1741053499

Message started by MnSpring on 03/03/25 at 17:58:19

Title: Don't get it.
Post by MnSpring on 03/03/25 at 17:58:19

Message: (Illegal in this Nation)

Turn your self in, if you are ILLEGAL.
You then have a chance of coming in, in the future.

When you are ILLEGAL, and caught, then you will never be allowed to come into this Nation again.

Why are the UL, DFI, WOKE, FDS Socialists angry with that ?

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by Eegore on 03/03/25 at 18:42:30

Arguments I have heard indicating this is a negative policy are typically not impacted directly in any way from illegal immigrant activities.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by zevenenergie on 03/04/25 at 00:37:50

These are complicated issues that we are discussing here.

And if you approach them in a political way, you will not get anywhere.

I think you should be much more honest. Just say that you do not feel like paying for them. That you are tough enough to separate children from their parents. That you do not mind that people who are refused, are faced with an impossible task almost equal to the deportations in Europe in the Second World War in Europe when Jews were transported.

These are all deep wounds in humanity and we touch them here when we talk about illegal immigrants.

There is an old but current proverb. You cannot pluck the rose before you have pricked yourself on the thorns.

Humanity will have to face its collective traumas.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by WebsterMark on 03/04/25 at 03:21:43

415E4D5E555E555E495C525E3B0 wrote:

These are complicated issues that we are discussing here.

And if you approach them in a political way, you will not get anywhere.

I think you should be much more honest. Just say that you do not feel like paying for them. That you are tough enough to separate children from their parents. That you do not mind that people who are refused, are faced with an impossible task almost equal to the deportations in Europe in the Second World War in Europe when Jews were transported.

These are all deep wounds in humanity and we touch them here when we talk about illegal immigrants.

You had some valid points until you got to that. Refusing entry to illegals who essentially broke into the country and are illegally squatting has zero in common with pulling a historical population from their homes, confiscating their possessions, loading them on box cars bound for death camps.
There is an old but current proverb. You cannot pluck the rose before you have pricked yourself on the thorns.

Humanity will have to face its collective traumas.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by zevenenergie on 03/04/25 at 03:55:36

There is a similarity when I see and read the information on that subject.
Namely, people are transported from Europe to Africa who are not welcome here. Mind you, they end up in a camp in the desert. I would not like to be in their shoes. But also not in the shoes of people who are deported who have been smuggled in here by human traffickers under miserable conditions. They are often promised things that never correspond to the actual situation.

Imagine it happening to you.

That affects me.

That is also one of the reasons why I am in favor of a strict immigration policy. It is scandalous that Biden has opened the borders.

But I mentioned the example because this discussion is loaded because collective traumas are also in us. and we often react from that without knowing it.
I think of Jog's topic and how heated emotions sometimes run.

It is simply the case that there are few people walking around without traumas. And they are triggered back and forth.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by MnSpring on 03/04/25 at 05:40:57

5474767E6374110 wrote:

Arguments I have heard indicating this is a negative policy are typically not impacted directly in any way from illegal immigrant activities.

So Arguments you have heard indicating this is a negative policy are from 'observed' factors. And your opinion is that, 'observed opinion', is because you believe those people are not impacted directly in any way from illegal immigrant activities

Have you observed any, 'support', of the policy, from people that are affected/impacted, directly in any way from illegal immigrant activities ?

By collecting cash money, and not paying any taxes ?

Like Killing someone, steeling, raping, selling drugs, etc, just because ?

Like having to pay, through taxes, for their Health care, Food, Shelter, Travel, etc. ?

Or you have not, 'observed', that reality.
Therefore it is not real ?

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by Eegore on 03/04/25 at 07:04:10

So Arguments you have heard indicating this is a negative policy are from 'observed' factors. And your opinion is that, 'observed opinion', is because you believe those people are not impacted directly in any way from illegal immigrant activities.

Yes it is my opinion that I have Observed statements from other humans that have opinions as result of their own Observations.

Have you observed any, 'support', of the policy, from people that are affected/impacted, directly in any way from illegal immigrant activities ?

It is my opinion, for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is, that I have not.

Or you have not, 'observed', that reality.
Therefore it is not real ?'

I do not claim to use Observed Reality as justification for my arguments. As such it is my opinion that I think that things I do not Observe can be real and are still reality.

It is my opinion that an example would be that I will still read an article and references even if the information aligns with what I have personally Observed instead of assuming it is true based off the extremely limited capacity a human, including myself, can Observe in comparison to all observable things on the planet.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by zevenenergie on 03/04/25 at 08:18:09

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by Eegore on 03/04/25 at 08:23:41

Ok but are you prepared to think about things that are suggested by people with a different point of view even if the outcome does not fit your worldview. Of course I am not asking you to live according to someone else's point of view but are you open to other possibilities. Or are your fixed conventions sacred.
And if yes and no, what does it take for you to open up?

It is my opinion that I'm not entirely clear what you are asking, but I can say it is my opinion that I do not think my Observations are an analogue for the entire planet. I think other people can Observe something different than me even when we Observe the same thing.

It is my opinion that the logic of Observed Reality is not one I would utilize in an argument as my Observations would not typically be enough information. Many things I do not Observe exist.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by zevenenergie on 03/04/25 at 09:05:16

I,ll re frase

Are you willing to consider the ideas of people with different perspectives, even if those ideas don't fit into your current worldview? I'm not asking you to live by their ideas, but are you open to other possibilities? Or are your fixed beliefs untouchable?
And if you are partly open and partly not, what would it take for you to question your beliefs?"

It is my opinion that the logic of Observed Reality is not one I would utilize in an argument as my Observations would not typically be enough information.
Do you mean that observations alone are not enough to support an argument?

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by Serowbot on 03/04/25 at 10:14:08

It's interesting that your avatar is covering it's eyes :-?

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by MnSpring on 03/04/25 at 10:31:36

7F697E637B6E63780C0 wrote:

It's interesting that your avatar is covering it's eyes

I have thought the lion is covering its eyes.

Just as a Human would place his/her hand on their head in total disbelief of the absolute ignorance of the,
UL, DFI, FDS, WOKE Socialists !

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by Eegore on 03/04/25 at 11:46:26

Do you mean that observations alone are not enough to support an argument?

My Observations alone are typically not enough to support an argument that has global implications. For instance I did not see a ton of humans die in a war in the Ukraine however I can reasonably conclude that humans die in war in the Ukraine by means of utilizing the Observations of others.

Of course once I Observe their Observations one could consider it my Observation. The issue is claiming information is true or false based off my Observations alone. I could simply refuse to Observe anything related to war in the Ukraine and now information about that is false.

That is the problem with Observed Reality. I can choose what I Observe.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by MnSpring on 03/04/25 at 12:48:06

4D6D6F677A6D080 wrote:

I can choose what I Observe.

Yep, you can.

Also, everyone else can.

And some, 'Observe', both sides of a political view.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by zevenenergie on 03/04/25 at 13:18:34

1131333B2631540 wrote:

I think it is good to remain critical of my own perception because my interpretation can be colored by previous experiences.
But I do not have to protect myself against criticism of my beliefs. I do not see them as my center.
I see the limitations of thinking and the veil that it raises. But I am not so skeptical that I cannot come to a conclusion.
And I can take multiple positions to look at something.

and there is also such a thing as objective measurements and peer review.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by Eegore on 03/04/25 at 13:23:21

Yep, you can.

Also, everyone else can.

And some, 'Observe', both sides of a political view.

Agreed. My opinion is that I agree. It is also my opinion that the argument that something "aligns" with "Observed Reality" is a poor argument based off the what we are agreeing on here. This is an opinion.

Stating a conflict in the Ukraine is killing humans by providing evidence is different than stating a conflict in the Ukraine is killing humans based off of Observed Reality in my opinion.

Stating I believe the conflict in the Ukraine is because of US built and ran child-killing DNA bioweapon labs by looking at physical evidence is different than stating the conflict in the Ukraine is because of US built and ran child-killing DNA bioweapon labs because it aligns with my Observed Reality.

Who knows what I'm choosing to Observe every day.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by zevenenergie on 03/04/25 at 15:01:15

Most of the time people are stuck in habit patterns.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by MnSpring on 03/05/25 at 05:06:48

Another, "WHY"

In 2009 Wilson said ,
"You lie!" (About President Obama)
And the UL, WOKE, DFI, FDS Socialists went nuts.

Today, signs saying;
"Musk Steals"
"Save Medicaid."
"False"
"Protect Veterans"
‘This is not normal’
And a shout out,
‘You have no mandate,"

Perfectly OK !

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by JOG on 03/05/25 at 06:51:01

Stating a conflict in the Ukraine is killing humans by providing evidence

That IS the reality I observe
Now,pretend standing within eyesight is required to observe.
You SURE you didn't get hit in the mouth hanging out in the sandbox with the other four year olds?

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by Eegore on 03/05/25 at 16:29:02

That IS the reality I observe
Now,pretend standing within eyesight is required to observe.

I never said that. My point is Observed Reality relies exclusivly on what the human chooses to Observe.

If a human Observes, through any means, even if they are blind and Observe by means other than their eyes, if they choose to Observe that US ran child-killing bio-labs are in the Ukraine, then any social media post about a war in Ukraine will align with their Observations. So war in the Ukraine is because of those US ran child-killing bio-labs. Any BS post online is now more believable since it aligns with that Observed Reality - even if done by a blind human.

Observed Reality is a poor argument as it is dependent on what a human chooses to Observe. For instance a human can claim they Observe man-made climate change by pointing out destructive weather, even if they are blind. So it would make sense to believe them that man made climate change causes bad weather right? After all it aligns with their Observed Reality - even if they are blind and did not "See" the weather.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by zevenenergie on 03/06/25 at 01:00:54

You seem to think that if observations are subjective, they are by definition unreliable.

It is indeed a problem that people often only see what they want to see. But the conclusion that all observations are therefore unreliable goes too far.

In addition, there are many abuses that have been hidden for years by news from the mainstream media, which were considered reliable by almost everyone. Many of these abuses were dismissed as conspiracy theories, but in retrospect it turned out that some of them did indeed have more than a grain of truth.

And here is my point: if you don't want to see something, you can't see it. That is something different than a subjective opinion.

Observed reality can indeed be supported by peer review and objective measurements.

There is always tension when two opposing opinions meet — and that is inevitable. People who did see these abuses and didn't deny them used everything they could find to say, "Look what's happening."

It is as if they see an elephant in the room, while others pretend it isn't there. Many of these so-called theories have now come to light or are about to surface.

Title: Re: Don't get it.
Post by Eegore on 03/06/25 at 15:12:49

You seem to think that if observations are subjective, they are by definition unreliable.

I think justifying information by claiming it aligns with a single human's personal Observations is a poor way to define information as factual.

It is indeed a problem that people often only see what they want to see. But the conclusion that all observations are therefore unreliable goes too far.

I never said all observations are unreliable. I said personal Observations are not conclusive fact that other information is accurate or inaccurate. Personal Observation is a poor justification since one can simply choose to not Observe certain things.

If I choose to only Observe humans that are wearing green shirts any information saying more green shirts are being worn is conclusively true based off my Observed Reality. However if I only Observe humans wearing red shirts, then any information saying humans wear green shirts is now conclusively false due to my Observed Reality.

Actual reality however would say the numbers of humans wearing red or green shirts should be counted. Humans who Observe the counted number of humans wearing red or green shirts will have a more accurate assessment than those using only their personal Observations to decide what is factual. Sometimes we just have to accept information we don't like or believe is true.

Observed reality can indeed be supported by peer review and objective measurements.

I agree. Claiming objective measurements are true/false based exclusively off of Observed Reality will be either accurate or inaccurate by pure chance. Observed Reality is a poor qualifier.