[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Miller, Jeremy JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us
Mon Jun 17 23:06:28 UTC 2002


> Living in harmony is achieved by obeying the law.
OK

> Illegal immigration is illegal.
Yes

> Therefore they are criminals by definition.
Pretty much, yes.

> What more need I say?
Well, the answer to his question.  He never said they weren't illegal.  He
asked what do we do about it.  That's alsways the tricky part.  Do we simply
punish?  (And how?)  Or try to prevent? (And how?)  Or a combination of
both?

I agree it is a big problem.  I won't claim to have a good answer, though.
(Legal immigration is a good thing, and should be the goal.)


> I am asking you what your vested interest is in spreading lies.

That requires an assumption that he has one.  This is essentially an
accusation based on that assumption.  So let's figure it out...

1.  What lie is being spread?
2.  Is it clearly a lie, and not something that is up for debate?
3.  Is he one that is spreading it?
4.  Is this spreading intentional?

If "yes" to all, then we can hold an accusation. Not before.  (If this is
all true, elaborate.  I didn't see it.)


> I don't argue ideas. I argue only facts today, as almost all days.

Well, I saw lots of them, but not everything I've seen today is what I'd
call "fact".  Perhaps my definition differs?  Facts are indisputable.  By
definition (well, mine anyway), that means no one is arguing about them
because there is nothing to be argued about.  They simple "are", all
available evidence supports them, and they simply aren't subjects of debate.
(Though they are used as supporting evididence for arguments that ARE up for
debate.)


> How is that an attack? It is a logical question,  and not too 
> far over the
> line to ask someone who tells me to move to the 
> govt-sponsored Elohim City,
> is it?


Woo, hoo!  That's a good one.  That's cheating, dude.  Of course it is a
"logical question".  But falling back on that defense for a loaded question
like that (an implied accusation, insult, and everything else you packed in
there) is a bit of a cop-out.  That's kindof cheap, and way too obvious.
You can do better than that. :)

In other words, it was both a logical question, AND an attack.  (An
unneccessary implication that has no bearing in the argument other than rile
people up.  You're pretty good at this.)  "Govt-sponsored Elohim City"...
holy hell, that's way funny!  (I never heard him say that, but now I'm
curious. :)


> Gee,  I guess I missed a post. Can you resend it Jeme?


Unfortunately (or not?), everyone is missing mine, too.  (I'll be checking
on a mailserver really soon to see what the holdup is.) Apologies in advance
to everyone for when all of mine pop through at once. :)





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list