Authorities say more than 100 immigrants suspected of being in the United States illegally were taken into custody during a raid at an illegal after-hours nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
I think you should re-read. I didn’t say due process was “extreme and radical”. You’re reading what you want to read and trying to polarize and derail this discussion, like the other commenter.
Just to state this will be my last reply to this sort of reply, since there’s no discussion to be had with people who had their minds set on blind hate before even entering, which, ironically, is a rather radical stance to have by itself. I know you won’t believe it and try to distort it to suit your internal frutration, but I’m on your side. Cheers.
Did you mean something else by “this type of lawlessness”? I went back and reread several times and I cannot see another interpretation.
“Immigrating illegally -> deport without due process” is the extremist angle. That’s lawlessness that no one should in good conscience support.
I don’t see anyone saying that breaking the law should go unpunished, just that deportation is not an appropriate penalty especially when there are existing more appropriate penalties. That does not seem extreme to me.
Let me be clear, I didn’t say “this type of lawlessness” anywhere. You’re likely refering to:
I don’t agree with authoritarianism, but I won’t defend lawlessness either.
Which is not at all the same statement, and that misquote implies a very different meaning to what I actually said.
What I implied is that IF it’s found that the people in that nightclub were indeed something illegal (and I don’t mean according to Trump, but according to the pre-established constitution), then they should face the consequences stated in the constitution for breaking the law just like anybody else - another thing I never mentioned is “deportation”, or even that they were immigrants, for that matter. It had nothing to do with the people involved and instead intended as a subtle criticism about how “at this moment we can’t be sure of what’s legal and what’s not” because there’s blatant abuse of the justice system, as my further statements in the original post reinforced.
Misquoting me by saying “This type of lawlessness” implies that I already decided they are indeed illegal immigrants, that they do not deserve due process, and that the automatic punishment for that is deportation. Which is the polar opposite of what I believe in and said.
Furthermore, interpreting any neutral statement (which mine wasn’t, as I’m against these discriminatory policies, but people will read it as they want to anyway) as being pro-Trump, not caring for context or semantic nuance, is pretty extreme.
I apologize for misunderstanding/misquoting. However, I’m not sure why you were even disagreeing with the original comment.
What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished? The only thing they said was that people should not be deported, and I would even read that to mean “without due process” or perhaps “as punishment”.
I do not disagree with the original statement, since it essentially reinforces my original point that everyone should get fair treatment.
What I disagree with is with someone taking my words out of context or putting words in my mouth (I.e. saying anyone who breaks the law should be ready to face consequences, regardless of how they feel) and implying they mean something else, such as condoning the seemingly unfair treatment of the people in the article. Which is what the first commenter implied by echoing pretty much my whole point, but in an argumentative and twisted manner:
Nobody should be deported their “legality” shouldn’t matter. Nobody is illegal.
No disagreements with the above statement at face value, but I don’t know why deportation is even part of it since I did not mention it and it has nothing to do with what I said first. That’s just jumping to conclusions for the sake of creating drama where there’s no need for it.
If it’s illegal and all that, yes, they should be held to standard.
But given the fact that this administration likes to slap the word “illegal” on anything they don’t like, was it really? Or is it a boy crying wolf again?
If I had said only the first part of my original comment I could see how someone might arrive to that conclusion, even if there’s an “if” in there, but I did clarify in the next sentence that it’s nearly impossible to deem them criminals since there’s no fair standard to guide it with the current administration.
Disagreeing is one thing, and I don’t mind it as someone who defends everyone’s right to freedom of expression, but twisting/adding words words to something I said to imply something else is just dishonest and contrarian by nature. And between two people who overall agree with each other, no less, which suggests the first commenter was just looking for some place to vent regardless of the subject.
Now the kicker. The first commenter then replies again, further clearing up that they actually meant to have an actually radical stance on the matter, stating:
yes no prisons or police should exist. “lawlessness” is a good thing.
So yes, answering your question of “What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished?”, pretty much this. Which would be considered an extreme stance, even if they’re entitled to it.
We know it’s a bad situation when the basic elements of the constitution are considered “extreme and radical”
I think you should re-read. I didn’t say due process was “extreme and radical”. You’re reading what you want to read and trying to polarize and derail this discussion, like the other commenter.
Just to state this will be my last reply to this sort of reply, since there’s no discussion to be had with people who had their minds set on blind hate before even entering, which, ironically, is a rather radical stance to have by itself. I know you won’t believe it and try to distort it to suit your internal frutration, but I’m on your side. Cheers.
Did you mean something else by “this type of lawlessness”? I went back and reread several times and I cannot see another interpretation.
“Immigrating illegally -> deport without due process” is the extremist angle. That’s lawlessness that no one should in good conscience support.
I don’t see anyone saying that breaking the law should go unpunished, just that deportation is not an appropriate penalty especially when there are existing more appropriate penalties. That does not seem extreme to me.
Let me be clear, I didn’t say “this type of lawlessness” anywhere. You’re likely refering to:
Which is not at all the same statement, and that misquote implies a very different meaning to what I actually said.
What I implied is that IF it’s found that the people in that nightclub were indeed something illegal (and I don’t mean according to Trump, but according to the pre-established constitution), then they should face the consequences stated in the constitution for breaking the law just like anybody else - another thing I never mentioned is “deportation”, or even that they were immigrants, for that matter. It had nothing to do with the people involved and instead intended as a subtle criticism about how “at this moment we can’t be sure of what’s legal and what’s not” because there’s blatant abuse of the justice system, as my further statements in the original post reinforced.
Misquoting me by saying “This type of lawlessness” implies that I already decided they are indeed illegal immigrants, that they do not deserve due process, and that the automatic punishment for that is deportation. Which is the polar opposite of what I believe in and said.
Furthermore, interpreting any neutral statement (which mine wasn’t, as I’m against these discriminatory policies, but people will read it as they want to anyway) as being pro-Trump, not caring for context or semantic nuance, is pretty extreme.
I apologize for misunderstanding/misquoting. However, I’m not sure why you were even disagreeing with the original comment.
What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished? The only thing they said was that people should not be deported, and I would even read that to mean “without due process” or perhaps “as punishment”.
Thanks, and apologies as well.
I do not disagree with the original statement, since it essentially reinforces my original point that everyone should get fair treatment.
What I disagree with is with someone taking my words out of context or putting words in my mouth (I.e. saying anyone who breaks the law should be ready to face consequences, regardless of how they feel) and implying they mean something else, such as condoning the seemingly unfair treatment of the people in the article. Which is what the first commenter implied by echoing pretty much my whole point, but in an argumentative and twisted manner:
No disagreements with the above statement at face value, but I don’t know why deportation is even part of it since I did not mention it and it has nothing to do with what I said first. That’s just jumping to conclusions for the sake of creating drama where there’s no need for it.
If I had said only the first part of my original comment I could see how someone might arrive to that conclusion, even if there’s an “if” in there, but I did clarify in the next sentence that it’s nearly impossible to deem them criminals since there’s no fair standard to guide it with the current administration.
Disagreeing is one thing, and I don’t mind it as someone who defends everyone’s right to freedom of expression, but twisting/adding words words to something I said to imply something else is just dishonest and contrarian by nature. And between two people who overall agree with each other, no less, which suggests the first commenter was just looking for some place to vent regardless of the subject.
Now the kicker. The first commenter then replies again, further clearing up that they actually meant to have an actually radical stance on the matter, stating:
So yes, answering your question of “What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished?”, pretty much this. Which would be considered an extreme stance, even if they’re entitled to it.