@jimmy_dore Two things can be true.
1. US foreign policy leads to poor conditions for migrants.
2. Immigrants don't have a right to live in my country
Why should American citizens be help responsible for the crimes of their government via mass immigration?
Hope this helps, thanks Jimmy.
@PRFlanagan@ggreenwald@SayNo2_Woketard@emilyjashinsky Arbitrary preference. The same as any other category of prevention. It wouldnt be an objective standard it would just reduce to preference in Glenn's worldview. I can do a harm reductionist argument as well but I don't need to because Glenn doesn't believe in objective morality.
@hanisch@SayNo2_Woketard@ggreenwald@emilyjashinsky@grok If you take a consequentialist position yes that would follow. That's why I used the line of reasoning with Glenn. He used harm reduction. So by his logic we should prevent all men as well. That is the problem with and ethical anti realism position.
@hanisch@ggreenwald@SayNo2_Woketard@emilyjashinsky It doesn't matter the moment he concedes he allows some arbitrary prevention from adoption he has conceded the argument. It isn't an objective standard. I can demonstrate from a consequentialist position gays shouldn't adopt. And he is taking a consequentialist position.
@ggreenwald@SayNo2_Woketard@emilyjashinsky We prevent certain groups of people from adopting all the time. Some people shouldn't adopt. Surely you agree some people should be excluded from adopting correct? It doesnt logically follow that you must then adopt, just because you don't want X group to adopt.
@ggreenwald@SayNo2_Woketard@emilyjashinsky P1: You haven't adopted
P2: Therefore your concern for children is fake
C: Therefore your position is wrong
P2 doesn't follow from P1. And even if P2 were true, C still wouldn't follow.
You're a lawyer by trade you should know this.
@ggreenwald@SayNo2_Woketard@emilyjashinsky No it doesn't. If I am not actively out there stopping crime that doesn't mean I want crime, or don't care if there is. Very basic epistemology.
If adoption centers were killing children, and I said they should stop, is my position unfounded just because I am not adopting them?
@ggreenwald@SayNo2_Woketard@emilyjashinsky This is just a tu quoque. It doesn't follow that you must adopt children just because you want certain standards introduced to protect them.
@LizzieMarbach@myredfox@Protestia Nala says she dead the same scripture as you and came to this wildly different conclusion. Why are you right and why is she wrong? And what scripture? Why is your 66 book canon right?
@CellaneousMiss What do you mean people? You cant say "pregnancy" when trying to dismiss emotional appeal and then say "people" when you are trying to bake it back in. Your perception doesn't alter personhood.
The first commandment is to love God and to not have any god's before Him. That requires belief. So "better" Christian would have to entail belief in God.
This is your brain on liberalism.
Oh also u ont have an epistemic worldview to justify the universal category of "better"