RE: Yup. "Murrica Has No Shortage of Deplorable Motherfuckers
June 22, 2018 at 9:16 am
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2018 at 9:19 am by LadyForCamus.)
(June 21, 2018 at 9:32 am)mh.brewer Wrote:(June 21, 2018 at 8:13 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: You should know me well enough by now to know that I’m happy to be corrected on any factual errors that my positions are based upon. Were they not implementing a “zero tolerance” policy on everyone crossing the border, including migrants with children in tow? Were they not using cruelty as s deterrent?
I'm not convinced that "ALL cases" were a form of punishment and are more likely the result of bad application of a law/directive. I don't agree with the zero tolerance policy or it's apparent blanket application. Zero tolerance is stupid in almost any setting/condition/circumstance.
From what I've read not everyone(ALL) was/were separated(one example): https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/c...ed-parents
As for cruelty as a deterrent, I'm not convinced that was the motive but a resulting outcome. And couldn't the "cruelty deterrent" point of view be applied to any illegal immigrant turned away, adult and child alike, claiming conditions of poverty, death threats, starvation, persecution............? I think there will always be some level of cruelty with regard to immigration. Most I will have sympathy for, some not.
While I take your point on the factual distinction between “all” and “not all” (though I think “most” is probably accurate), in context I think it’s a distinction without a meaningful difference. There is a meaningful difference between occasionally having to separate a child from its family because it is what’s in the best immediate interest of the child, and taking children away as a matter of policy simply for their parents crossing illegally. Those exceptions from the Vox article you cited were for Asylum seekers. Why are Trump snd Co. separating kids from that population at all?
You are right that speculating about motive is merely my opinion, but it’s a fact that the resulting outcome is cruel to children. It is intentional, and in most cases, unnecessary. Intentional harm to children is my personal line in the sand, anyway.
(June 21, 2018 at 9:45 am)Napoléon Wrote:(June 21, 2018 at 8:13 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: It is a demonstrable fact that taking young children away from their parents, and especially breastfed infants, is cruel to the children. Would anyone like to argue that unnecessarily harming children is not cruel? By all means, you have the floor.
Sorry did anyone dispute this? Straw man much?
That was in reply to Brewer. I misinterpreted which point in my response he was challenging as a factual error. Settle down Michael Scott. 😝
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.